UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


TMK  SLOSS  COLLECTION  OF  THE  SEMITIC  UBKAKY 
OK  THE  UNIVERSITY  OKvCAUKOKMA. 


Accession 


GII-T  01 

LOUIS  SLOSS. 

FEBRUARY.  1897. 

Class  No. 


Origin  of  Christianity 


AND    A    COMMENTARY    TO 


THE  ACTS  Q£;CHE  APOSTLES, 


' 


-22 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year 
1868, 

BY  ISAAC  M.  WISE, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio. 


THIS  VOLUME  is  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED  TO 

THE  FREE  RELIGIOUS  ASSOCIATION, 
jSy  the  Author. 


Truth  is  the  Redeemer  of  Mankind. 
The  Apostles  of  Truth  and  Char- 
ity are  the  Angels  of  the  Most 
High,  and  the  High  Priests  of 
Humanity. 


P  RE  F  ACE. 


"  TRUTH  only,  in  the  name  of  God,"  this 
is  the  object  of  this  volume.  With  the  ut- 
most respect  for  religion  itself  and  for  the 
Bible,  with  due  reverence  for  Christianity, 
the  important  factor  in  the  history  of  civil- 
ization, and  with  a  profound  regard  for  the 
religious  feelings  of  all  good  men,  the  fol- 
lowing pages  were  written  to  contribute  to 
the  religious  literature  of  our  age  the  re- 
sults of  twenty  years  of  individual  re- 
search. 

The  four  Gospels,  the  origin  of  which  is 
discussed  in  this  volume,  can  not  be  taken 
as  the  main  sources  for  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  represent  it  in  the  second 
and  third  stages  of  its  development.  The 
authors  were  Christians  before  they  wrote 
their  books ;  hence  Christianity  preceded 
them.  In  the  form  as  these  Gospels  are 
now  before  us,  they  prove  that  their  re- 
spective authors  were  fully  acquainted 
with  the  dissentions  among  the  Jewish 
Christians  on  the  one  side  and  the  Gentile 
Christians  on  the  other.  They  contain 
polemics  of  those  parties,  and  conciliatory 
attempts ;  consequently  they  are  secondary 
sources  for  our  purpose.  Besides,  it  is  next 
to  an  impossibility  to  ascertain  from  them 


PIIEFACE.  V 

the  religion  taught  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
himself.  The  Jesus  represented  in  John's 
Gospel  is  radically  different  in  character, 
actions,  speeches  and  pretensions  from  the 
Jesus  of  the  Synoptics;  while  with  these, 
Luke  again  differs  widely  in  essential 
points  from  his  two  predecessors  who  are 
themselves  by  no  means  a  unity  on  the 
narrative,  or  the  speeches  and  parables. 
A  careful  investigation  into  the  Gospels 
proves  that  not  only  no  part  of  the  narra- 
tive can  be  fully  relied  upon  as  being  his- 
torically certain,  but  also  no  speech, parable 
or  sentence  supposed  to  have  been  uttered 
by  Jesus  himself  will  stand  the  test  of 
historical  criticism.  What  Jesus  himself 
did,  suffered,  opposed  or  tauaht,  hence 
what  influence  he  exercised  upon  the  origin 
of  Christianity,  or  what  religious  principles 
he  laid  clown  for  his  disciples,  is  next  to 
an  impossibility  to  ascertain.  Every  bio- 
graphy of  Jesus,  every  life  of  Christ  must 
necessarily  be  considered  an  individual 
conception  footing  upon  uncertainties  ;  and 
the  expression  the  religion  of  Christ  is 
simply  a  misnomer. 

The  epistles  are  the  oldest  Christian  liter- 
ature and  the  most  unquestionable  sources 
for  the  origin  of  Christianity.  They  were 
known  to  the  Gospel  writers,  and  were  used 
by  them.  We  learn  from  the  epistles  what 
the  apostles  taught.  It  is  from  the  teach- 
ings of  the  apostles  that  one  mi<rht  some- 
times ascertain  doctrines  of  Jesus.  'There- 
fore the  epistles  are  the  main  sources  used 


Vi  PREFACE. 

by  the  author  of  this  work.  In  the  epistles 
themselves  there  are  two  entirely  distinct 
systems  of  Christianity,  one  of  which  is 
represented  by  Peter,  James,  John  and  the 
other  original  apostles,  and  the  other  by 
Paul  arid  his  followers.  The  history'  of 
the  development  of  these  two  systems  is 
in  "  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Therefore 
this  latter  book  serves  as  the  basis  to  this 
work.  The  facts  have  been  separated  from 
the  embellishment,  and  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  represented  by  the  apostles, 
chronologically  arranged  and  carefully 
compared  with  other  sources. 

Among  the  other  sources  which  the 
author  consulted,  it  is  chiefly  the  Talmud 
and  other  rabbinical  scriptures.  He  under- 
took the  task  of  translating  several  hun- 
dred talmudical  passages  for  this  work,  all 
rendered  from  the  originals,  and  hopes  to 
have  expounded  numerous  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  which  are  otherwise  un- 
intelligible. He  hopes  still  more  to  have 
opened  an  entirely  new  avenue  of  research 
to  Cnristiau  theology  and  criticism.  The 
Talmud  and  other  rabbinical  books  con- 
sulted by  the  author,  contain  not  only  the 
cotemporary  history,  archeology  and  litera- 
ture of  the  very  time  when  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  lived,  but  also  the  laws  and  doc- 
trines, as  well  as  the  superstitious  and 
aberrations  of  that  age  and  that  country. 
Without  the  Talmud,  a  perfect  understand- 
ing of  original  Christianity  is  almost  im- 
possible, as  the  candid  reader  of  this  book 


PREFACE.  Vii 

will  undoubtedly  admit,    after   a  careful 
perusal  of  it. 

May  this  humble  contribution  to  Ameri- 
can literature  be  acceptable  to  the  GRKAT 
I  AM,  and  prove  a  blessing  to  all  who  long 
after  truth.  .This  is  the  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR. 

CINCINNATI,  May,  1868. 


INDEX. 

1   N  fi    R  O  D  n  f!  T  I  O  N  . 

CHAPTER  I. 

/  Jerusalem, 1(5 

CHAPTER  II. 

The    Holy    Ghost., 23 

CHAPTER  ITT. 

The  Glossology) 50 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Government  of  the  Nascent  Congrega- 
tion   <>!•> 

CHAPTER  V. 

On   the   Miracles,.... 84 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Persecution  of  the  Apostles, 133 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Aposiles''    Creed, 170 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Paul-Acher, 311 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Creed  of  Paid, 351 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 425 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Voyages  of -Paul. 417 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Capture,  Trial  and  Deportation  of  PauZ,.476 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Thelast  Days  of  Paul 511 


OIF 
CHRISTIANITY. 


INTBODUCTION. 

The  book  next  to  the  fourth  Gospel  in 
the  Christian  canon  is  called,  "  The  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,"  or  also,  "The  Acts."  It 
begins  with  a  brief  sketch  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, post  mortem  communications  for  forty 
days  with  the  disciples,  and  the  ascension 
of  Jesus,  contradictory  not  only  to  the  ac- 
counts of  the  same  events  by  Paul,  John, 
Mark  and  Matthew,  but  also  to  Luke's  ac- 
count, notwithstanding  the  undisputed 
fact,  that  the  Luke  oi  the  third  Gospel  was 
also  the  author  ot  "  The  Acts." 

The  entire  book,  after  those  introductory 
remarks,  is  devoted  to  the  transactions  of 
the  apostles  and  the  fate  of  the  first  con- 
gregations, after  the  demise  of  Jesus.  Its 
author,  as  remarked  already,  is  identical 
with  him  who  wrote  the  third  Gospel.  The 
introductory  verse  points  expressly  to  that 
Gospel  as  "  the  former  treatise "  of  the 
author,  in  which  the  same  Theophilus  is 
addressed.  The  character  and  style  of  both 
works,  favorite  phrases  and  crystalized 
prejudices  for  Romans  and  Samaritans,  the 
2 


10  ORIGIN  OF 

want  of  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  the 
laws  and  customs  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the 
geography  of  Palestine  common  to  both 
books,  proves  their  origin  from  one  author 
a  fact,  which  the  church  early  admitted. 
(Antiq.Ital.iii,  854). 

The  authors  of  the  Gospels  being  un- 
known, the  author  of  Acts  can  not  be 
pointed  out  with  any  degree  of  certainty. 
The  author  of  the  third  Gospel,  in  the  in- 
troduction, states  that  many  before  him 
had  undertaken  to  write  down  the  Chris- 
tian story.  This  entitles  us  to  the  hypothe- 
sis that  the  Gospels  according  to  Matthew 
and  Mark,  and  probably  also  apocryphal 
works  of  this  nature,  were  written  previ- 
ously to  Luke's,  who  knew  them,  quoted 
from  them,  changed  and  added,  both  stories 
and  words.  In  "The  Acts,"  however,  he 
refers  to  no  predecessors  in  this  task,  and 
leads  us  to  believe  he  was  the  first  writer 
on  this  topic.  This  leads  us  to  the  inquiry, 
from  what  sources  did  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts"  take  the  stories  which  he  narrates  ? 

It  is  certain  that  the  author  had  two  dif- 
ferent sources  before  him.  In  the  history 
of  Paul,  which  occupies  the  largest  portion 
of  the  book,  the  author  uses  the  pronoun 
"  we,"  (chapters  16,  20, 21,  27, 28)  so  that  the 
narrator  suddenly  includes  himself  in  the 
narrative,  which  is  not  the  ease  in  any 
other  portion  of  the  book.  The  character 
of  these  two  sources  is  entirely  different, 
not  only  in  style,  but  in  the  very  object  of 
the  stories.  The  one  i»  full  of  tendency, 


CHRISTIANITY.  11 

• 

miracles  and  long  speeches,  and  the  other, 
on  the  contrary,  is  simple,  natural  and 
clear;  he  narrates  what  occurs  to  Paul, 
whose  companion  he  pretends  to  be. 

The  author  of  the  "  We  "  portion  of  "  The 
Acts  "  can  not  be  identified  with  the  author 
of  the  other  portions ;  because  he  presents 
himself  as  the  companion  of  Paul,  hence 
one  acquainted  with  the  transactions  and 
the  life  of  that  apostle.  He  could  not  have 
reported  Paul's  conversion  in  three  different 
and  contradictory  manners;  nor  could  he 
place  words  and  speeches  in  the  mouth  of 
Paul  which,  'as  we  shall  fully  ascertain 
hereafter,  he  could  not  possibly  have 
spoken  ;  nor  is  it  likely  that  he  could  be  so 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,  if  a  disciple  of  Paul, 
as  the  writer  of  "  The  Acts  "  actually  was. 
Besides,  it  is  not  well  possible  that  the 
author  of  Acts  was  a  cotemporary  of  Paul 
at  all.  Criticism  ascertained  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  the  Gospels  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  and  Mark  were  written 
after  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  against  which 
they  contain  various  polemics.  The  very 
fact  of  the  polemical  nature  of  these  Gos- 
pels shows  that  they  originated  years  after 
Paul  preached,  after  his  views  and  doc- 
trines had  gained  so  much  of  a  reputation, 
that  polemics  became  necessary  in  the 
opinion  of  those  writers.  The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Luke  was  composed  long  after 
the  above,  as  we  have  seen  before,  at  a  time 
when  the  Paulites  considered  it  necessary 
to  vindicate  their  system  of  Christianity 


12  ORIGIN  OP 

against  the  Jew-Christians.  This  was  cer- 
tainly long  after  the  death  of  Paul  and  his 
cotemporaries.  "The  Acts"  having  been 
written  by  the  same  author,  years  after  he 
had  written  his  Gospel,  with  the  avowed 
tendency  of  conciliation  between  Jew- 
Christians  and  Gentile-Christians,  it  could 
not  possibly  have  been  composed  by  a  co- 
temporary  or  disciple  of  Paul. 

The  author  of  the  "We"  portion  of 
"The  Acts"  appears  to  have  been  a  com- 
panion or  disciple  of  Paul.  The  final  au- 
thor of  "The  Acts"  re-produced  literally 
portions  of  those  traveling  notes,  omitted 
much,  changed  passages  to  suit  his  pur- 
poses, and  inserted  his  own  productions 
taken  from  tradition  and  invention. 
Where  he  quoted  literally  from  that  diary 
heretained  the  "We;"  elsewhere  hechanged 
it.  The  simple  accounts  from  that  diary 
were  too  simple  and  plain  for  the  author's 
conception;  he  embellished  them  to  suit 
his  fancy  and  the  traditional  stories  of  the 
congregation.  The  history  of  the  congre- 
gation of  Jerusalem  together  with  Peter 
and  the  other  apostles,  which  he  narrates 
in  the  first  part  of  his  book,  being  full  of 
miracles  and  extraordinary  events ;  the 
life  of  Paul  grouped  at  the  side  of  the  for- 
mer could  not  possibly  be  left  so  soberly 
human,  as  the  notes  of  his  companion  repre- 
sented it,  and  HO  changes  and  additions 
were  necessary. 

It  is  not  well  possible  to  point  with  cer- 
tainty to  any  particular  companion  of  Paul, 


CHRISTIANITY.  13 

as  being  the  author  of  those  notes.  The 
expounders  are  of  different  opinions  and 
point  respectively  to  Titus,  Timotheus, 
Silas  and  Luke,  all  named  as  companions 
of  Paul.  Timotheus,  it  appears,  was  a 
special  favorite  of  Paul.  He  calls  him 
(I  Corin.  iv,  17)  "  the  beloved  and  faithful 
child  in  the  Lord,"  who  would  call  to  their 
minds  "  the  way  in  Christ,"  as  he  every- 
where "in  each  congregation  teacheth." 
This  Timotheus  (Acts  xvi,  1)  was  the  son  of 
a  Greek  father  and  a  Hebrew  mother.  It 
appears,  however,  from  the  sum  of  the  tes- 
timony, that  Luke,  or  Lucanus,  was  the 
author  of  those  notes.  The  second  author, 
namely,  the  one  who  wrote  the  third  Gos- 
pel and  "The  Acts,"  therefore,  adopted 
this  name.  As  the  other  Gospels  were 
written  according  to  Matthew,  Mark  or 
John,  so  he  wrote  his  according  to  Luke, 
i.  e.  according  to  traditions  and  dogmas  of 
congregations  established  by  Luke,  the 
disciple  of  Paul.  He  calls  that  material, 
"  those  things  which  are  most  surely  be- 
lieved among  us." 

"The  Acts"  is  a  very  deficient  book. 
Peter  and  Paul  are  not  only  the  principal 
heroes  of  the  narrative;  they  are  the  only 
apostles  of  whom  that  author  has  anything 
to  communicate.  The  other  apostles  are 
either  not  mentioned  at  all,  or  they  occupy 
the  places  of  side  figures,  entirely  in  the  back 
ground  of  the  picture.  No  mention  is  made 
of  the  demise  of  any  of  the  disciples,  ex- 
cept Stephen.  The  book  closes  abruptly, 


14  ORIGIN  OF 

leaving  Paul  in  his  hired  house  in  Rome, 
so  that  it  appears  the  closing  chapters  of 
the  book  were  lost.  Its  dates  are  confused, 
its  quotations  from  the  Bible  full  of  errors, 
and  taken  almost  exclusively  from  the 
Samaritan  version. 

The  object  of  "  The  Acts  "  is  not  simply 
to  give  an  account  of  the  apostles,  their 
lives  and  transactions,  and  the  fate  of  the 
first  congregations,  as  he  ascertained  it  in 
traditional  or  written  sources ;  the  author 
had  a  particular  object  in  view.  Among 
all  the  movements  parallel  to  or  imitative 
of  Christianity  as  Peter  and  his  co-laborers 
preached  it,  one  was  most  successful  among 
the  Gentiles ;  it  was  the  work  of  the  zeal- 
ous, fanatical,  inflexible  and  powerful 
Paul,  Saul  of  Tarbis,  who  preached  a  Gos- 
pel of  his  own,  one  vrhich  he  received  not 
of  the  apostles ;  one  which  was  entirely  in 
opposition  to  their  teachings.  It  was  a 
new  theology,  and  he  was  the  only  theo- 
logian among  the  apostles — with  the  bold 
innovation  that  the  laws  of  Moses,  both 
ritual,  ceremonial  and  political  were  abro- 
gated by  Jesus.  He  held  only  one  point  in 
common  with  the  apostles,  viz :  that  Jesus 
was. the  Messiah,  who  died  for  the  sins  of 
all,  and  rose  from  the  dead  to  demonstrate 
his  divine  mission  and  nature.  The  apostles 
themselves  maintained  that  Jesus  only 
protested  against  the  rabbinical  laws  and 
the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees,  and  had 
not  come  to  abrogate  an  iota  or  a  tittle  of 
>the  Laws  of  Moses.  Therefore  they  ob- 


CHRISTIANITY.  15 

served  Sabbath  and  holidays,  circumcision 
and  sacrifice,  temple  worship  and  Levitical 
purity  in  common  with  all  orthodox  Jews. 
They  considered  the  political  laws  of  Moses 
as  binding  upon  the  Israelite  and  as  divine 
in  their  origin^  as  the  religious  portion  of 
the  divine  dispensation.  Paul,  in  one  bold 
stroke,  abrogated  everything  in  the  name 
of  the  master,  which  was  in  the  way  of  the 
new  system  of  religion,  to  be  promulgated 
among  the  Gentiles,  ready  then  for  a  change 
of  religion.  These  two  different  schools 
are  known  in  the  early  history  of  Chris- 
tianity as  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity; 
Petex  was  the  representative  man  of  the 
former  system,  and  Paul  the  founder  of  the 
latter. 

Our  inquiry  into  "The  Acts"  will  show 
that  this  difference  was  important  and  ex- 
citing; that  it  gave  birth  to  a  sharp  con- 
flict between  Jew-Christians  and  Gentile- 
Christians  ;  and  that  this  controversy  con- 
tinued after  the  death  of  the  apostles  into 
the  second  century,  till  finally  the  Jew- 
Ghristians  were  ex  communicated,  and  Gen- 
tile Christianity  maintained  the  whole 
field. 

These  two  diverging  systems,  in  the  be- 
ginning, considerably  agitated  the  Chris- 
tian congregation.  Its  Internal  develop- 
ment was  by  no  means  as  peaceable,  as  was 
always  supposed.  • 

Besides  the  glorification  of  the  apostles, 
the  author  of  "The  Acts "  had  also  in  view 
the  settlement  of  this  vexatious  question. 


16    '  ORIGIN  OF 

In  favor  of  his  attempt,  he  substituted  a 
similarity  of  views  and  notions  to  Peter  and 
Paul,  far  beyond  the  lacts  of  their  respec- 
tive histories.  He  would  sometimes  let 
Peter  act  in  a  manner  as  Paul  only  could 
have  done  and  vice  versa.  He  let  them  re- 
ciprocally approve  of  doctrines  and  actions 
which  actually  must  have  been  censured. 
In  this  manner  the  author  effects  his  pur- 
pose; the  opposite  views  gradually  give 
•way  to  an  amalgamation  of  both. 

Tho  main  points  of  these  differences  are 
preserved  in  the  Epistles.  They  afford 
proper  means  to  ascertain  the  differences  of 
opinion.  They  supply  us  with  parallel 
passages  to  control  the  statements  of  the 
author  of  "The  Acts."  Besides,  there  are 
other  sources  whicn  serve  the  same  purpose 
in  many  instances.  Josephus,  the  rabbi- 
nical scriptures,  and  the  classics  throw  con- 
siderable light  on  some  passages  of  the 
book. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THK   NASCENT  CHURCH   AT  JERUSALEM. 

The  author  of  "The  Acts"  opens  his  nar- 
rative with  a  new  version  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension  of  Jesus.  In  the  Gospels 
these  events  follow  almost  simultaneously  ; 
in  "The  Acts"  Jesus  appears  "through 
fortvdays"  to  his  disciples,  to  give  them 
extensive  instructions  "in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Everything  connected  with  those 


CHRISTIANITY.  17 

events,  persons,  speeches,  locality  and  phe- 
nomena, are  changed,  and  differ  also  from 
the  first  account  of  the  same  author,  Luke. 

However  this  strange  method  may  be  ex- 
plained; to  the  critical  reader  it  can  only 
suggest  the  premise  that  the  stories  of  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  were  not  con- 
sidered, by  the  authors  themselves,  a  de- 
scription of  matters  of  fact.  They  consid- 
ered them  legends  and  treated  them  accord- 
ingly. Every  writer  produced  them  agree- 
ably to  the  traditions  of  the  congregation 
in  which  he  lived,  and  suitable  to  the  dog- 
mas which  he  advocated. 

In  regard  to  the  book  before  us  the  sug- 
gestion is  precisely  the  same.  We  can  not 
expect  authentic  and  accurate  history.  It 
is  a  book  which  employs  a  number  of  his- 
torical facts  in  vindication  of  certain  dog- 
ma* based  upon  alleged  miracles,  the  alle- 
gations and  dogmas  being  the  main  object. 

The  Gospels  contain  contradictory  ac- 
counts concerning  the  locality  of  the  apos- 
tles after  the  death  of  their  master.  Mat- 
thew leads  them  to  Galilee,  where  the 
ascension  takes  place,  and  John  brings 
them  as  far  -west  as  Lake  Tiberias,  while 
the  others  let  them  remain  in  Jerusalem 
altogether;  each,  however,  chronicles  the 
express  command  of  Jesus  for  his  favorite 
locality,  so  that  all  harmonizing  efforts  are 
in  vain.  Luke,  both  in  his  Gospel  and 
"The  Acts,"  maintains  that  the  disciples 
and  apostles  remained  in  Jerusalem.  Jesus 
there  and  then,  at  Bethany,  to  which  place 


18  ORIGIN  OF 

he  had  led  them,  appeared  to  them  in  his 
body,  and  there  ascended  to  heaven. 
"  Then  returned  they  unto  Jerusalem,"  our 
author  says,  "  from  the  Mount  called  Olivet, 
which  is  from  Jerusalem  a  Sabbath-day's 
journey."  Then  they  began  their  congre- 
gational devotions  "in  an  upper  room," 
with  the  women,  the  mother  and  the  broth- 
ers of  Jesus.  This  author  flatly  denies  that 
the  disciples  went  to  Galilee  after  the  death 
of  Jesus,  whatever  Matthew  or  John  may 
maintain  to  the  contrary.  The  fact  is,  that 
neither  of  them  vras  certain  on  this  point, 
nor  did  they  intend  to  state  a  fact.  They 
chronicled  legendary  traditions  as  such,  as 
they  had  received  them. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  however,  had 
a  particular  reason  to  have  the  apostles 
and  disciples  remain  in  Jerusalem.  The 
three  Evangelists  only  intend  to  glorify 
Jesus  and  not  the  apostles ;  therefore  the 
men,  terrified  by  the  tragical  fate  of  their 
master,  naturally  left  the  city,  and  the  ap- 
paritions of  Jesus  must  have  taken  place 
at  the  homes  of  the  disciples,  in  Galilee. 
This  consternation  and  flight,  however, 
would  have  betrayed  doubt  hi  the  Messia- 
ship  of  Jesus,  and  cowardice  on  the  part  of 
his  disciples.  Luke,  whose  task  it  was  also 
to  glorify  the  apostles,  could  not  admit 
that.  Therefore  he  mentions  the  valorous 
conduct  of  the  disciples,  when  the  multi- 
tude came  to  arrest  Jesus  (Luke  xxii,  49). 
"Lord,  shall  we  smite  with  the  sword?" 
the  disciples  ask  specially  with  Luke,  while 


CHRISTIANITY.  19 

his  predecessors,  Matthew  and  Mark,  know 
nothing  about  this  question.  Therefore  the 
apostles,  who  must  not  conduct  themselves 
cowardly,  must  not  doubt  for  a  moment 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  could  not  well 
leave  Jerusalem  ;  and  so  our  author  re- 
tains them  there  contrary  to  the  united 
testimony  of  his  predecessors,  because  it 
appeared  so  best  to  him. 

The  number  of  disciples,  we  are  told,  was 
about  120  (Acts  i,  15).  This  number  is  no 
less  uncertain  than  the  place.  All  the 
numbers  almost  are  imitations  of  some 
Scriptural  event.  The  twelve  apostles  were 
to  represent  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
The  seventy  disciples  mentioned  in  the 
Gospel  represent  the  seventy  elders,  or  the 
Sanhedrin  of  Israel.  But  this  body  having 
originally,  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  consisted  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty  persons,  who  were 
called  the  great  synod,  and  constructed 
the  second  commonwealth  with  all  its  re- 
ligious and  civil  institutions;  it  is  quite 
natural  that,  in  the  estimation  of  Luke,  the 
first  great  synod  of  the  Church  must  also 
have  consisted  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
persons. 

As  a  decisive  testimony,  however,  that 
Luke  had  not  the  intention  to  chronicle 
facts,  we  only  need  quote  what  he  puts  in 
the  mouth  of  Peter  concerning  Judas,  the 
traitor  (Acts  i,  18,  19,  20).  Luke  informs  us 
that  Peter  "in  those  days,"  addressing  the 
disciples  on  a  certain  topic  said,  concern- 
ing Judas,  "Now  this  man  purchased  a 


20  ORIGIN  OF 

field  with  the  reward  of  iniquity ;  and  fall- 
ing headlong,  he  burst  asunder  in  the 
midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out.  And 
it  was  known  unto  all  the  dwellers  in  Jer- 
usalem ;  inasmuch  as  that  field  is  called  in 
their  proper  tongue  Aceldama,  that  is  to 
say,  the  field  of  blood.  For  it  is  written 
in  the  book  of  Psalms,  Let  his  habitation 
be  desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein : 
and  his  bishoprick  let  another  take." 

In  the  first  place,  Peter  here  contradicts 
Matthew,  who  states  expressly  that  the  end 
of  Judas  was  so:  "And  he  cast  down  the 
pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple  and  departed, 
and  went  and  hanged  himself."  The 
priests,  Matthew  continues,  bought  a  field 
with  this  money  (Matthew  xxvii,  5).  Had 
Luke  supposed  that  Matthew,  whose  state- 
ment he  must  have  seen,  intended  to  state 
a  fact,  he  could  not  have  thus  flatly  contra- 
dicted him.  In  this,  and  all  similar  cases, 
we  are  forced  to  admit  either  one  of  the 
narrators  stated  a  falsehood,  or  each  told 
the  legend  as  such,  in  a  manner  best  suit- 
ing his  purpose. 

In  the  second  place,  Peter  could  not  pos- 
sibly say  to  his  cotemporaries,  "  And  it 
was  known  unto  all  the  dwellers  at  Jerusa- 
lem ;"  nor  could  he  say  that  the  field  was 
called  "In  their  proper  tongue,  Aceldama," 
which  he  must  translate  for  them  "  the 
field  of  blood,"  if  he  addressed  the  eye- 
witnesses of  that  event  in  the  very  city  of 
Jerusalem  whose  language  was  familiar  to 
them.  Therefore,  we  must  suppose,  Luke 


CHRISTIANITY.  21 

added  those  two  verses  (19  and  20)  in  expla- 
nation of  the  alleged  statement  of  Peter. 
But  here  again  he  betrays  his  intention  not 
to  write  history,  for  he  shows  us  the  origi- 
nal sources  from  which  the  story  sprung, 
namely,  the  name  of  a  place  near  Jerusa- 
lem, where  deceased  strangers  were  buried, 
Aceldama  ;  and  the  passages  from  Psalms, 
•which  were  understood  to  have  been  spoken 
against  the  enemies  of  David.  Had  Luke 
intended  to  state  a  fact,  he  could  not  call  to 
his  aid  two  points  whi^h  render  the  fact 
itself  suspicious.  He  narrates  a  legend  as 
he  had  heard  it,  and  informs  us  honestly, 
on  what  basis  it  rests. 

The  address  of  Peter  to  the  disciples,  to 
which  we  alluded,  concerns  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas 
the  traitor,  to  fill  up  the  number  twelve. 
On  his  suggestion  two  were  appointed, 
Barsabas  and  Matthew.  After  prayer, 
"  they  gave  forth  their  lots,"  and  Matthew 
was  elected.  The  prayer  which  Luke  re- 
cords on  this  occasion  can  not  be  authentic; 
it  is  certainly  his  own  composition.  The 
words  in  verse  25,  "That  he  may  take  part 
of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,"  like  the 
word  "  bishoprick  "  in  verse  20,  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  been  uttered  at  so  early 
a  stage  of  the  apostolic  history,  before  the 
existence  of  any  episcopacy.  They  point 
distinctly  to  a  time  when  the  Church  had 
already  an  episcopalian  organization  with 
ministers  or  deacons,  apostles  and  bishop- 
ricks  or  episcopacies.  It  is  interesting  to 


22  ORIGIN  OP 

know  that  Luke  took  the  liberty  to  add  not 

only  explanatory  notes,  but  also  a  prayer 

of  his  own,  and  put  it  in  the  mouths  of 

the  eleven  apostles.    Of  course,  this  is  not 

history. 

Matthew,  the  apostle  elected,  like  many 
others,  is  mentioned  no  more.  But  we 
meet  again  with  the  rejected  Barsabas 
(Acts  xv,  22),  who  was  one  of  the  "  chief 
men  among  the  brethren." 

In  conclusion  of  this  chapter  we  must  call 
attention  to  a  mistake  of  Adam  Clarke. 
In  his  commentary  to  Acts  i,  16,  he  re- 
marks :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth  of 
David.  This  is  a  strong  attestation  to  the 
divine  inspiration  of  the  book  of  Psalms. 
They  were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
spoken  by  the  mouth  of  David."  If  Mr. 
Clarke  had  paid  more  attention  to  the  Gos- 
pels and  the  Acts,  he  would  have  found 
that  the  writers  quoting  from  Moses  or  the 
prophets,  mention  no  Holy  Ghost.  They 
do  this  only  when  quoting  from  Psalms  or 
•other  books  ol  the  Hiography,  agreeable 
to  an  ancient  rule  tsmpn  nn3  no&U  D'2irO 
"  The  Hiography  (to  which  also  the  Psalms 
belong)  were  said  in  a  holy  spirit,"  i.  e., 
they  are  no  prophecies.  This  "  holy  spirit" 
which  was  a  quality  of  the  poet,  was  turned 
into  a  "Holy Ghost,"  a  divine  being  out- 
side of  the  poet.  Anyhow  the  authors  of 
the  Gospels  and  Acts  started  from  that 
ancient  rule  of  the  Hebrews  which  places 
the  Hiography,  hence  also  the  Psalms, 
below  the  prophets  in  point  of  divinity. 


CHRISTIANITY.  23 

The  expression  of  Peter  says  exactly  the 
contrary  to  what  Mr.  Clarke  understood  it. 


CHAPTER  H. 


THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

Previous  to  public  preaching  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  after  the  first  church  had  been 
organized  at  Jerusalem,  Luke,  in  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  "  The  Acts,"  tells  us  of  two 
miracles  which  happened  to  the  apostles : 
They  received  the  Holy  Ghost  and  spoke 
in  foreign  tongues.  The  age  of  miracles 
was  long  gone  by.  The  last  miracle  nar- 
rated in  the  Old  Testament  was  the  protec- 
tion of  Daniel  in  the  lion's  den,  which  hap- 
pened at  least  five  hundred  years  before 
the  Christian  miracles.  The  great  pro- 
phets, whose  words  are  preached  in  all 
churches,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
eleven  of  the  twelve  minor  prophets,  never 
experienced  or  wrought  a  miracle.  The 
kings  of  Israel,  from  Saul,  David  and  Solo- 
mon down  to  the  last  of  the  Davidians, 
wrought  no  miracles,  and  saw  but  one  or 
two.  So  that  the  age  of  miracles  was  well 
passed,  and  the  Maccabees  themselves,  with 
their  intense  piety  and  patriotism,  expected 
no  miracles,  and  wrought  none,  in  aid  of 
their  cause.  Outside  of  the  Christian  ac- 
counts, we  read  of  no  miracle  wrought  any- 
where in  the  world  five  hundred  years 
before  and  after  that  time.  Therefore  it  is 
certainly  strange  that  just  at  that  time  and 
that  point  all  the  laws  of  nature  should 


24  ORIGIN  OF 

have  been  suspended,  and  the  Almighty 
arbitrarily  wrought  miracles  on  some  illit- 
erate fishermen,  tent  makers,  and  other 
tradesmen  of  very  limited  knowledge; 
when  the  very  idea  of  arbitrariness  and. 
lawlessness  is  incompatible  to  supreme 
reason. 

Again,  the  age  of  miracles  must  be  one 
of  childlike  simplicity,  when  the  force  of 
argument  and  testimony  is  inefficient  to 
produce  conviction,  and  intelligence  stands 
upon  so  low  a  scale  that  occular  demon- 
stration suffices  to  impress  it  with  abstract 
truths.  The  age  of  the  apostles,  however, 
was  one  of  high  culture,  of  wonderful 
genius  even,  in  Rome,  Greece,  Egypt  and 
Syria.  It  was  neither  necessary  nor  profi- 
table then  to  work  miracles. 

Furthermore,  if  indeed  such  miracles 
had  been  wrought  as  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  how  could  it  happen  that  the 
Jews  of  Palestine  were  not  converted  after 
all;  the  few  who  were  converted,  the  Ebio- 
nites  and  Nazarenes,  were  afterwards  ex- 
communicated as  heretics;  and  how  could 
it  come  to  pass  that  the  Roman  writers, 
and  Rome  was  then  the  mistress  of  Syria, 
knew  nothing  of  it? 

Therefore  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment cannot  be  received  as  facts.  They 
can  only  serve  as  a  testimony  that  the 
books  in  their  present  form  were  written 
in  the  age- when  learning  und  philosophy 
had  been  reduced  almost  to  zero,  as  this 
was  the  case  in  the  third  century,  and  peo- 


CHRISTIANITY.  25 

pie  were  satisfied  again  with  the  marvelous 
and  extraordinary  without  appeal  to 
reason.  Although  the  Gospels  and  "The 
Acts  "  were  written  at  a  much  earlier  date 
than  the  third  century,  still  they  must 
have  undergone  several  change*  in  that 
century,  before  the  construction  of  the 
Christian  canon  by  the  council  of  Nice. 

Before  we  can  proceed  with  the  main  nar- 
rative, we  must  make  some  remarks  on  the 
"  Holy  Ghost."  The  Old  Testament  makes 
frequent  mention  of  the  "spirit,"  or  the 
"  spirit  of  God,"  or  also  "an  impure  spirit." 
God  bestows  this  spirit  on  man,  especially 
on  the  prophet ;  but  it  was  also  given  to 
the  seventy  elders  under  Moses,  to  Eldad 
and  Medad,  to  heroes  on  the  field  of  battle, 
to  inventive  artists  and  artizans,  and  Saul 
was  infatuated  by  an  impure  spirit.  The 
holy  spirit  as  well  as  the  impure  one  is 
subjective.  By  a  divine  influence  this  dor- 
mant capacity  in  the  human  mind  is  roused 
to  activity,  and  it  is  either  a  nKUj  Till  Ru- 
ach  Nebuahj  "  a  spirit  of  prophecy,"  the 
power  of  predicting  future  events  in  evi- 
dence of  the  prophet's  divine  mission ;  or 
it  is  unipn  nn  Ruach  Hakodesh,  a  "  holy 
spirit  "  without  the  gift  of  prophecy,  to 
inspire  one  to  lofty  deeds  or  sublime  works 
of  art.  The  former  is  a  higher  degree  than 
the  latter.  So,  for  instance,  Isaiah  is  of  the 
former  and  David  of  the  latter  class. 

The  "Holy  Ghost"  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  not  a  translation  of    the  Ruach 
Hakodesh;  it  is  the  translation  of  Ruach  1 
3 


26  ORIGIN  OF 

Hakadosh.  Kodesh  is  the  adjective  *'  holy" 
for  persons  or  things  ;  while  Kadosh  is  the 
adjective  "  holy  "  for  God  or  the  people  of 
Israel  as  a  totality.  In  the  Old  Testament 
the  holy  spirit  is  subjective,  a  quality  of 
man  roused  by  divine  influence ;  therefore 
it  is  a  Roach  Hakodesh.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  "  Holy  Ghost "  is  God's  altogether; 
it  is  objective.  He  comes  down  upon  Jesus 
having  been  baptized  by  John ;  and  it  is  fre- 
quently remarked  that,  during  his  public 
career,  the  Holy  Ghost  wrought  in  him. 
The  disciples,  as  long  as  the  master  lived, 
ihad  no  Holy  Ghost;  but  they  received  it 
after  .his  death,  as  Luke  tells  us.  This  is 
theview  common  to  the  Evangelists.  John 
states  expressly  (vii,  39),  "  For  the  Holy 
Ghos«t  was  not  yet  given ;  because  that 
Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."  Jesus,  how- 
ever, on  his  last  evening,  promised  his  dis- 
ciples (ibid,  xvi,  16),  "  And  I  will  pray  the 
Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another 
Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
forever ;  even  the  spirit  of  truth,  whom  the 
world  can  not  receive."  So  far  John,  who 
wrote  later  than  Luke,  agreed  with  his  pre- 
decessor ;  but  now  he  chooses  his  own  way 
to  impart  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  disciples. 
The  resurrected  Jesus,  before  leaving  his 
disciples  (ibid,  xx,  22),  ".He  breathed  on 
them,  and  said  unto  them,  receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Here  John  contradicts  the 
narrative  of  Luke,  which  we  shall  narrate 
after  this.  The  other  Gospels  observe 
silence  on  this  topic.  Luke  lets  the  resur- 


CHRISTIANITY.  27 

rected  Jesus  bid  the  disciples:  "I  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you ;  but 
tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye 
be  endowed  with  power  from  on  high." 
In  the  Acts  the  same  author  lets  Jesus  say, 
"  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
not  long  after  these  days."  Then  he  nar- 
rates in  the  second  chapter,  how  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  down  upon  the  disciples. 

The  two  oldest  Gospels,  Matthew  and 
Mark,  do  not  admit  that  the  disciples  or 
apostles  were  promised  or  given  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Jesus.  Matthew's  account, 
(xxviii,  10),  contains  a  simple  charge  of 
Jesus  to  his  followers,  to  baptize  and  teach. 
Mark  adds  to  this  the  promise  that  all  be- 
lievers (and  they  only)  should  be  saved 
and  work  miracles  (xvi,  15).  But  110  prom- 
ise of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  made  by  either. 

Therefore  we  know  the  following  points : 

1.  The  "  Holy  Ghost  "  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  entirely  different  from  the  "  holy 
spirit"  of  the  Old  Testament;  the  former 
is  objective  and  the  latter  subjective. 

2.  Matthew  and  Mark  did   not  know, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  the  apos- 
tles, and  had  them  fully  ordained  for  their 
apostolic  mission  before  the  ascension  of 
Jesus;  and  John,  who  must  have  known 
the  narrative  of    Luke,   admits  that  the 
apostles  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  de- 
nies the  Pentecost  miracle  of  Luke,  and 
has  the  Holy  Ghost  given  to  the  apostles 
by  Jesus  himself  previous  to  his  ascension. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  examine  into 


28  ORIGIN  OF 

the  Pentecost  miracle.  The  author  of 
"  The  Acts  "  narrates  it  thus : 

"  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
fully  come,  they  were  "all  with  one  accord 
in  one  place. 

"  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from 
heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and 
it  filled  all  the  house  whero  they  were  sit- 
ting. 

"  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them. 

"And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance." 

Here  the  Holy  Ghost  comes  down  in  a 
hurricane,  with  John  he  eomes  in  a  gentle 
breath ;  still  both  ideas  are  taken  from  one 
passage  in  I  Kings  xix,  11  and  12,  where  it  is 
narrated,  that  a  voice  from  on  high  was  to 
speak  to  the  prophet  Elijah.  "  And,  be- 
hold, the  Lord  passed  by,  and  a  wind, 
great  and  strong,  rending  the  mountains, 
and  breaking  in  pieces  the  rocks,  went 
before  the  Lord ;  but  not  in  the  wind  was 
the  Lord ;  and  after  the  earthquake  was  a 
fire;  but  not  in  the  fire  wa^the  Lord ;  and 
after  the  fire  was  a  sound  of  soft  whisper." 
In  this  sound  of  soft  whisper,  Elijah  per- 
ceived the  voice  of  the  Lord. 

Luke  took  from  this  passage  literally  the 
rushing  mighty  wind  and  the  fire.  The 
coming  down  of  God  and  imparting  the 
oracle  to  Elijah  was  merely  changed  by 
Luke  into  "  And  they  were  all  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  "  The  tongues  like  as  of 
fire,"  is  no  original  simile  with  Luke ;  he 
unskillfully  changed  the  metaphor  of 


CHRISTIANITY.  .29 

Isaiah  (v,  24)  "a  tongue  of  fire."  John 
most  likely  perceiving  how  Luke  destroyed 
the  poetical  beauty  of  the/passage  in  Kings, 
rejected  the  whole  story,  and  took  only  the 
conclusion  of  the  .passage,  "the  sound  of  a 
soft  whisper,"  and  lets  Jesus  "breathe" 
the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  apostles. 

The  question  is  now,  why  did  Luke  write 
this  passage,  and  why  did  he  take  the  wind 
and  fire  and  not  rather  the  sound  of  a  soft 
whisper  as  the  demonstration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  John  and  the  author  of  Kings 
did? 

The  twenty-fifth  day  of  December  was 
adopted  by  the  Church  as  the  birth-day  of 
Jesus.  This  was  an  accommodation  to  a 
pagan  festival.  The  Saturnalia,  with  all 
their  licentiousness  and  debauchery,  were 
celebrated  on  the  25th  day  of  December 
among  the  Greco-Roman  pagans.  Early 
Christians,  with  the  best  of  intention,  most 
likely,  changed  the  cause  and  character  of 
the  day.  It  became  the  birth-day  of  Jesus, 
for  which  not  the  least  historical  data  ex- 
ist. Precisely  the  same  is  the  case  with  the 
day  of  his  death.  At  a  very  early  stage  of 
the  Christian  history  it  was  already  uncer- 
tain when  Jesus  was  crucified.  According 
to  the  Synoptics,  this  event  must  have 
taken  place  on  the  first  day  of  the  Pass- 
over feast ;  because  Jesus  ate  of  the  paschal 
lamb  the  night  before  his  death.  This 
sacrificial  meal  was  partaken  of  accord- 
ing to  the  law  the  evening  preceding  and 
opening  the  feast.  But  this  is  impossible, 


30  ORIGIN  OF 

because  in  the  first  place  the  Jews  did  no 
public  business  on  that  day,  had  no  court 
sessions,  no  trials,  and  certainly  no  execu- 
tion on  any  Sabbath  or  feast-day ;  and  in 
the  second  place,  the  first  day  of  the  Pass- 
over never  was  on  a  Friday,  and  never  can 
be,  according  to  established  principles  of  the 
Jewish  calendar.  John,  in  consideration 
of  these  and  several  other  objections,  omits 
the  paschal  meal  and  the  "  Lord's  supper  " 
altogether,  and  adopts  the  day  before  the 
feast  as  the  day  of  crucifixion.  If  it  had 
been  certain  at  all  when  Jesus  was  cruci- 
fied, John  could  not  set  aside  the  state- 
ments of  the  Synoptics  and  adopt  another 
day. 

The  Synoptics  adopted  the  first  day  of 
Passover  because  they  taught  the  dogma 
that  Jesus  died  to  redeem  all  sinners.  The 
fact,  concerning  the  day,  was  shaped  to 
suit  the  dogma.  Israel  was  redeemed  from, 
the  Egyptian  bondage  on  the  da^  celebra- 
ted ever  after  that  event  as  the  feast  of  the 
Passover ;  therefore  the  death  of  Jesus,  the 
second  redemption,  must  have  taken  place 
on  the  self-same  day. 

The  Pentecost,  the  sixth  day  of  the  third 
month,  was  known  to  the  Jews  as  the  day 
when  the  revelation  of  the  decalogue  on 
Mount  Sinai  took  place,  and  it  is  considered 
so  to  this  day.  In  the  phraseology  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  the  revelation  on 
Mount  Sinai  was  "  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  As  Jesus  died  on  Passover, 
to  effect  the  second  redemption  precisely 


CHRISTIANITY.  31 

on  the  same  day  when  the  first  took  place, 
so  also  the  second  revelation,  the  pouring 
out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  had  to  come,  and  on 
the  precise  day  when  the  first  occurred,  the 
Pentecost.  The  Jew -Christians  selected 
these  days  without  reference  to  fact ;  there- 
fore John  paid  no  regard  to  either,  and 
states  that  Jesus  himself,  before  Pentecost, 
breathed  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  disciples. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  tells  us,  that 
Peter,  in  an  address  to  the  multitude,  stated 
the  reason  why  the  "  Holy  Ghost "  was 
poured  out  on  the  disciples. 

"  But  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet  Joel, 

"  And  it  carne  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon 
all  flesh  :  and  your  sons  and  your  daugh- 
ters shall  prophesy  r  and  your  young  men 
shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams-: 

"  And  on  my  servants,  and  on  my  hand- 
maidens, I  will  pou«r  out  in  those  days  of 
rny  Spirit;  and  they  shall  prophesy: 

''And  I  will  shew  wonders  in  heaven 
above,  and  signs  in  the  earth  beneath; 
blood,  and  fire,  and  vapour  of  smoke. 

"  The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness, 
and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  that  great 
and  notable  day  of  the  Lord  come. 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whoever 
shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  shall 
be  saved." 

The  author  did  not  quote  right  the  words 
of  Joel.  Joel  speaks  not  of  "  the  last  days;" 
he  says  p  nrux  "after  this,"  viz:  after  the 
happy  times  which  he  in  the  previous  pass- 
age prophesied  to  his  people.  He  says  not 


32  OBIGIN  OF 

"God  will  pour  out  OF  his  spirit  on  all 
flesh;"  he  says,  ^nn  r»K  "my  spirit," 
without  any  limitation.  The  prophet  says 
not  "  on  MY  servants  and  on  MY  hand-maid- 
ens I  will  pour  out  OF  my  spirit;"  he  says 
plainly,  "  And  also  on  the  servants  and  on 
the  hand-maidens,  in  those  days,  I  will 
pour  out  my  spirit,"  to  which  Luke  adds, 
"  and  they  shall  prophesy."  He  stops  in 
the  midst  of  the  verse  because  the  prophet 
concludes  thus :  "  For  on  Mount  Zion  and 
in  Jerusalem  there  shall  be  deliverance,  as 
the  Lord  hath  said,  and  among  the  rem- 
nant whom  the  Lord  calleth." 

It  appears  that  the  author  of  "  The  Acts" 
felt  that  the  passage  quoted  from  Joel  did 
not  suit  his  case,  and  he  made  the  arbitrary 
changes  in  the  Scriptural  text  as  we  have 
noted.  But  even  then  it  will  not  do,  for 
the  prophet  says,  God  would  pour  out  his 
spirit  "  upon  all  flesh  ";  he  predicts  "  your 
sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy," 
&c.;  and  Luke  claims  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  poured  only  on  some  persons,  and  not 
"on  all  flesh."  Joel  predicts  that  event 
after  he  had  said:  "And  ye  shall  know 
that  I  am  among  Israel,  and  I  am  God, 
your  Lord,  and  none  beside ;  and  my  peo- 
ple shall  never  again  be  put  to  shame." 
After  this  time,  so  the  prophet  continues, 
God  will  pour  out  his  spirit  on  all  flesh, 
&c.  This  was  not  the  case  in  the  days  of 
the  ape  sties;  for  a  few  years  later  Israel 
suffered  the  worst  shame,  the  most  painful 
humiliation  which  can  be  inflicted  on  a 


CHRISTIANITY.  33 

people:  its  capital  and  its  sanctuary  were 
destroyed  by  Titus,  its  armies  slain,  its 
land  laid  waste,  and  the  people  dragged 
into  exile. 

Luke  or  Peter  could  not  possibly  have 
read  that  passage  in  Joel  without  perceiv- 
ing instantly  that  it  had  not  the  least  ref- 
erence to  their  case.  The  mistranslations, 
additions  and  omissions,  are  not  accidental; 
they  are  intentional.  This  is  most  strik- 
ingly betrayed  in  the  passage,  "And  on 
MY  servants  and  on  MY  hand-maidens  I 
will  pour  out  in  those  days  OF  my  spirit, 

AND    THEY    SHALL    PROPHESY,"    when    the 

prophet  said  none  of  the  capitalized  words. 
Luke  added  the  "  my  "  to  suit  the  primi- 
tive Christian  congregations,  for  whom  he 
claimed  the  power  of  prophesy,  of  which 
the  prophet  said  nothing.  If  Luke  had  in- 
tended to  narrate  a  fact,  which  he  believed, 
he  could  not  have  resorted  to  the  illigiti- 
inate  means  of  changing  a  Scriptural  pass- 
age to  suit  his  case,  when  he  must  have 
known  that,  by  this  very  method,  he  rouses 
the  suspicion  of  the  reader. 

Again,  if  Luke  had  been  certain  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  down  upon  the  disciples, 
it  was  unnecessary  to  bring  in  Peter  as  a 
witness  and  put  speeches  in  his  mouth 
which  he  could  never  have  made.  If  it 
sounds  strange  that  the  first  words  which 
Peter  spoke,  after  he  had  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  were  a  falsification  of  Scriptures; 
and  if  it  sounds  stranger  still  that  Peter 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  did  not  know  what 


34 

the  prophet  Joel  said  (aiid  the  quotation 
from  Joel  occurs  in  Peter's  speech),  it  is 
beyond  all  reasonable  probability  that,  in 
that  scene  of  tumultuous  agitation,  amaze- 
ment and  ecstacy,as  Luke  describes  it,  one 
was  cool  and  composed  enough  to  write 
down  what  Peter  said,  or  that  he  himself 
could  afterwards  even  write  down  what  he 
had  said  in  a  state  of  nameless  trance. 
The  scene  is  depicted  in  "  The  Acts  "  thus : 
A  miracle  is  wrought,  the  Holy  Ghost 
comes  down  in  a  rushing  mighty  wind 
which  fills  the  house,  and  cloven  tongues 
"  like  as  of  fire,"  sat  upon  each  of  the  dis- 
ciples. It  affects  them  so  powerfully  that 
they  speak  with  other  tongues,  in  a  state  of 
such  fiery  excitement  and  feverish  ecstaey, 
that  some  of  the  spectators  said,  "  these 
men  are  full  of  new  wine."  The  noise  of 
the  miracle  and  of  the  voices  is  so  strong 
that  it  attracts  a  multitude  of  people  so 
great  that  "  about  three  thousand  "  of  them 
were  baptized.  Under  this  amazement, 
noise,  confusion,  excitement  and  excogi- 
tation, so  much  everybody  knows  of  hu- 
man nature,  nobody  could  have  written- 
down  what  Peter  said,  nor  could  he  have 
done  it  in  an  hour  of  sober  thought. 

Besides  all  this,  Peter  is  supposed,  in  the 
same  speech,  to  have  misquoted  from  a 
Psalm  of  David.  He  quotes  from  the  six- 
teenth Psalm  with  the  following  mistakes : 
Verse  25,  he  makes  of  TDH  HJ31?  HIIT  'JVW 
"I  foresaw  the  Lord  always  before  my 
face,"  which  he  expounds  in  the  next  follow- 


CHRISTIANITY.  35 

ing  verses  that  David  spoke  "  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ."  Anybody  having  any 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  which  Peter 
could  not  help  having,  knows  that  Shivveh 
signifies  not  "  to  foresee;  "  it  signifies  "  to 
make  level,  to  put,  to  set."  (See  Gesenius.) 
King  James'  translators  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment knew  this  and  in  Psalm  xvi,  8, 
which  is  the  quoted  passage,  translated  "  I 
have  set  the  Lord  always  before  me." 
This  translation,  which  is  the1  correct  one, 
does  away  altogether  with  Peter's  asser- 
tion connected  therewith,  that  David  "fore- 
saw" the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  David  set 
the  Lord  before  his  eyes,  i.  e.,  he  looked  up 
to  God  with  fearless  confidence,  and  there- 
fore he  did  not  fear  death  or  corruption. 

It  is  not  well  possible  that  Peter,  in  the 
presence  of  so  many  Jews,  should  have 
interpreted  the  word  Jehovah  to  signify 
"  Christ,"  as  the  author  of  "The  Acts  "  re- 
ports him  to  have  done  in  this  speech ; 
because  this  mnst  certainly  hafe  appeared 
blasphemy  in  the  eyes  of  his  audience, 
who  would  nois  allow  even  to  pronounce 
the  ineffable  name  of  the  Most  High,  much 
less  to  apply  it  to  any  being,  living  or  dead. 
Any  attentive  reader  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  history  of  primitive  Christi- 
anity knows,  that  neither  Peter  nor  the  Jew 
Christians  ever  thought  of  associating 
Jesus  with  Jehovah.  Jesus  was  to  th»m 
plainly  the  Messiah,  a  human  being  of  a 
higher  order,  who  had  come  to  redeem 
Israel  and  restore  the  throne  of  David. 


36  ORIGIN  OF 

Therefore  Peter  could  not  have  spoken  the 

words  which  Luke  puts  in  his  mouth. 

Having  commenced  with  a  misrepresen- 
tation of  the  sixteenth  Psalm,  the  author 
of  "  The  Acts"  continues  in  the  same  strain, 
and  says  (verses  27  and  28),  "  Because  thou 
wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell  (Sheol), 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Holy  One  to 
see  corruption.  Thou  hast  made  known 
unto  me  the  ways  of  life ;  thou  shalt  make 
me  full  of  joy  with  thy  countenance."  The 
correct  translation  of  these  two  verses 
(Psalm  xvi,  10,  11)  is  thus : 

"For  thou  wilt  not  abandon  my  soul  to 
Sheol ; 

Thou  wilt  not  suffer  thy  pious  ones  to  see 
corruption. 

Thou  wilt  make  known  to  me  the  path  of 
life, 

The  fulness  of  joy  (which  is)  in  thy  pres- 
ence, 

The  pleasantness  (which  is)  at  thy  right 
hand  forever." 

The  author  of  "The  Acts"  changed  tfS 
into  "  neither "  because  he  must  have 
another  subject  in  the  second  member  of  the 
verse.  He  changed  yrm  into  "  thy  Holy 
One,"  when  the  word  is  in  the  plural  num- 
ber and  has  not  the  least  relation  to  the 
word  "holy;  "  it  admits  no  other  trans- 
lation beside  "  thy  pious  ones."  And 
he  does  all  this  with  the  avowed  intention 
to  misguide  the  reader  to  believe  that 
David  prophesied  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
when  the  Psalmist  actually  speaks  of  the 
immortality  of  all  pious  ones,  as  the  cause 


CHRISTIANITY.  37 

why  he  feared  not  death  and  corruption. 
The  author  then  changes  "Jjnin  the  plain 
future  tense  into  "  Thou  hast  made  known 
to  me,"  and  adds  to. the  second  member  of 
the  verse  "Thou  shalt  make  me"  (full  of 
joy),  so  that  there  can  not  be  the  least  mis- 
take, that  he  knowingly  and  wilfully 
changed  this  Psalm  to  apply  to  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus,  when  it  says  nothing  be- 
sides the  doctrine  of  immortality,  which 
David  says  was  his  consolation. 

Again,  Peter  is  supposed  to  have  said  in 
that  speech  (verse  34),  "  For  David  is  not 
ascended  into  the  heavens;"  but  he  saith 
himself,  "  The  Lord  saith  unto  my  Lord, 
sit  thou  on  my  right  hand."  This  argu- 
ment is  absurd,  as  none  can  sit  on  the  right 
hand  of  God,  God  having  neither  hands 
nor  limits,  and  no  body  can  ascend  to 
heaven,  it  being  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
gravity.  If  the  words  "  sit  on  my  right 
hand  "  must  be  understood  to  be  seated  or 
placed  on  a  choice  spot  under  God's  espe- 
cial protection,  an<t  in  special  favor  with 
him,  then  ascension  is  not  necessary  to 
this  end. 

The  words  quoted  are  a  translation  from 
Psalm  110,  which  was  addressed  to  David 
while  he  was  in  Mahenaim,  on.  his  flight 
before  his  son  Absalom.  But.  there  it  says 
not  "  the  Lord  saith  to  my  Lord,"  as  if  God 
had  spoken  to  God ;  it  says  "  Jehovah  saith 
to  my  lord,  not  with  a  capital  L,  it  is  not 
Adoni  which  signifies  "My  Lord"  mean- 
ing God;  it  is  Adonee,,  "my  lord,"  mean- 


38  ORIGIN  OF 

ing  a  man.  But  aside  from  this  mistake, 
which  Peter  could  not  well  have  made 
before  a  Jewish  audience,  to  whom  the 
words  Adoni  and  Adonee  were  too  familiar, 
he  could  not  have  used  this  argument 
without  stating  that  he  bad  heard  it  of  his 
master,  as  it  was  considered  next  to  a  crime 
among  the  ancient  Jews  to  adopt  the  words 
of  another  person,  and  «f  one's  teacher  es- 
pecially, without  giving  ,him  credit.  Mat- 
thew (xxii,  44)  informs  us  that  Jesus  made 
use  of  this  peculiar  argument  before  the 
Pharisees.  The  fact  in  regard  to  this  mis- 
representation of  the  110th  Psalm  appears 
to  be  this:  Matthew,  the  authors  of  "  The 
Acts  "  and  of  the  "  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews," 
which,  critics  know,  was  not  Paul,  found 
the  following  passage  of  Paul :  "  For  he 
must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet."  (I  Corinthians  xv,  25.) 
This  is  a  legitimate  metaphor,  suggested 
by  the  first  verse  of  the  110th  Psalm.  But 
those  authors  being  less  acquainted  with 
the  Hebrew,  took  the  hint  from  Paul,  and 
turned  the  metaphor  into  a  prophecy. 
Matthew  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
himself;  Luke  gives  it  to  Peter,  and  the 
author  of  the  "Epistle  to  the  Hebrews" 
claims  it  as  his  own  (Heb.  i,  13). 

Therefore,  in  the  face  of  all  these  errors 
and  misrepresentations,  no  honest  critic 
can  maintain  that  Peter  made  this  speech 
before  a  Jewish  audience  in  Jerusalem. 
Luke  composed  it  and  put  it  into  the  mouth 
of  Peter,  as  he  did  with  the  previous  prayer 


CHRISTIANITY.  39 

and  the  explanatory  verses,  in  order  to 
have  his  authority  for  the  alleged  fact, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  down  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  upon  the  disciples.  Thus  we 
know  to  a  certainty,  that  the  author  of 
"  The  Acts  "  gives  us  no  authentic  history, 
no  chronicle  of  facts,  and  we  have  no  cause 
whatsoever  to  believe'  him  in  the  main 
point,  viz :  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured 
out  on  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  or  that  he 
himself  believed  it.  He  narrates  a  cur- 
rent tradition  as  he  had  heard  it,  and  em- 
bellishes it  with  a  prayer  and  a  speech  put 
in  the  mouth  of  Peter. 

If,  after  a  careful  examination  into  the 
statements  made  by  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts,"  we  must  confess  that,  in  regard  to 
the  first  acts  of  the  apostles  and  the  Pente- 
cost miracles,  he  has  not  given  us  histori- 
cal notices;  we  must  confess  at  the  same 
time  that,  in  regard  to  the  "Holy  Ghost,"  he 
stood  upon  some  historical  ground.  Paul 
and  the  primitive  Christians  maintained, 
that  all  believers  in  the  new  dispensation 
possessed  the  "Holy  Ghost"  among  the 
gifts  of  grace;  only  that  the  apostles  pos- 
sessed it  in  a  higher  degree.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  apostles  alleged  to  be  in- 
spired by  the  "  Holy  Ghost."  This  allega- 
tion was  neither  new  nor  isolated  in  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  as  is  evident  from 
passages  in  Josephus,  Philo  and  the  New 
Testament  itself.  But  these  passages  hav- 
ing been  frequently  quoted  and  discussed, 
we  will  quote  from  the  Talmud  passages 
which  explain  the  whole  matter. 


40  ORIGIN  OF 

The  Talmud,  in  many  places,  notices  a 
supernatural  voice,  called  Sip  H3  Bath  Kol, 
"the daughter  of  a  voice,"  for  which  we 
have  no  proper  equivalent  in  the  English, 
except,  probably,  the  echo.  So  at  least  the 
glossarists  to  the  Talmud  (Sanhedrin  11  «) 
understood  it.  They  remark  this:  "  Some 
maintain  that  those  who  heard  the  Bath 
Kol  did  not  hear  a  direct  voice  from 
heaven ;  it  was  like  the  secondary  voice 
which  is  heard  at  a  distance  if  one  strikes 
forcibly  the  tree  of  a  forest.  It  was  this 
voice  which  they  heard,  therefore  they 
called  it  "  the  daughter  of  a  voice." 

Moses  Landau,  in  his  rabbinical  lexicon, 
and  others,  maintain  the  Bath  Kol  was 
similar  to  the  vox  populi.  This  may  have 
been  the  case  some  times  and  in  some 
places,  for  the  ideas  connected  with  the 
Bath  Kol  differed  widely  at  various  times 
and  places.  No  les^a  rabbinical  authority 
than  Rabbenu  Bechai  states  :  "  There  are 
four  degrees  of  inspiration :  the  Bath  Kol, 
the  Urim  and  Thumim,  the  holy  spirit  and 
prophecy  itself.  This  is  the  rising  scale  of 
perfection."  He  evidently  did  not  consider 
the  Bath  Kol  to  be  the  vox  populi..  He  must 
have  considered  it  to  be  a  direct  or  indirect 
voice  from  heaven.  His  opinion  is  based 
upon  several  passages  in  the  Talmud.  We 
quote  one  which  occurs  several  times  (San- 
hedrin 11  a) :  "  The  Rabbis  teach,  with  the 
deaths  of  the  last  prophets,  Haggai^  Zecha- 
riah  and  Malachi,  the  holy  spirit  left 


CHRISTIANITY.  41 

Israel;  still  they  are  communicating  with 
the  Bath  Kol."  Here  the  Bath  Kol  is  an 
inferior  substitute  for  the  holy  spirit  which 
inspired  the  prophets.  This  becomes  still 
more  evident  from  the  sequel  of  the  same 
passage,  which  reads  thus:  "Once  they 
{the  students)  were  sitting  in  the  upper 
hall  of  Beth  Guria  in  Jericho,  and  there 
was  given  upon  them  a  Bath  Kol  from 
heaven:— There  is  one  here  who  is  worthy 
that  the  holy  spirit  (Sechinah)  should  rest 
upon  him,  as  it  did  upon  Moses ;  only  that 
his  generation  is  not  worthy  enough.  The 
sages  looked  upon  Hillel  the  Elder,"  &c. 
"'And  once  they  were  sitting  in  the  upper 
hall  at  Jamnia,  and  there  was  given  upon 
them  the  Bath  Kol  from  heaven: — There  is 
one  here  who  is  worthy  that  the  holy  spirit 
should  rest  upon  him.  The  sages  looked 
upon  Samuel  the  Lesser,"  <fec. 

We  translate  literally,  "  there  was  given 
upon  them  the  Bath  Kol  from  heaven;" 
hence  it  can  not  possibly  be  understood  to 
be  the  vox  populi.  It  is  no  less  evident 
from  the  above  passages  that  the  Bath  Kol 
is  considered  inferior  to  the  Shechinah  or 
holy  spirit,  and  precisely  so  Rabbenu 
Bechai  understands  the  matter.  This  very 
Samuel  the  Lesser,  it  says  in  the  same 
passage  of  the  Talmud,  prophesied  before 
his  dying  hour  the  misery  which  the  Em- 
peror Hadrian  was  to  inflict  on  Israel. 
-  According  to  the  Talmud,  King  David 
heard  the  Bath  Kol.  When  he  said  to 
Mefibosheth,  the  son  of  Jonathan,  "thou 
and  Zeba,  thy  servant,  shall  divide  the 


42  ORIGIN  OF 

field,"  the  Bath  Kol  said,  "Jeroboam  and 
Rehabeam  shall  divide  thy  kingdom" 
(Sabbath,  53),  In  this  ease  again  the  Bath 
Kol  prophesies.  King  Solomon  also,  the 
Talmud  maintains,  received  a  Bath  Kol 
(Ibid.  14) ;  but  it  was  only  a  voice  of  appro- 
bation, after  he  had  ordained  certain  ritual 
laws.  The  Talmud  brings  the  Bath  Kol  as 
high  up  as  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
and  tells  us,  "  Rabbi  Elieser  said,  when 
'  Israel  said  first,  We  will  do !  and  then, 
We  will  hearken  !  (understand)  there  went 
forth  a  Bath  Kol  and  said :  Who  broached 
to  my  children  the  secret  of  the  minister- 
ing angels?"  (Ibid,  86).  In  this  and  in  the 
previous  case,  the  Bath  Kol  comes  directly 
from  the  Deity.  . 

Again,  in  the  Talmud  (Sotah,  33)  it  is 
maintained  that  the  high  priests,  Simon  the 
Just  and  John  the  Asmonean,  heard  the 
Bath  Kol.  The  latter  was  informed,  while 
performing  the  solemn  rites  on  the  Day  of 
A'tonement,  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
that  the  Hebrew  host  had  engaged  the  Sy- 
rians the  same  day  and  had  routed  them 
completely,  near  Antioch.  This  is  akin  to 
prophecy. 

The  Bath  Kol  also  spoke  to  unworthy 
persons.  We  are  told,  (Pesachim,  94,  a) 
"  Rabbi  Johannan  ben  Saccai  said,  what 
did  the  Bath  Kol  reply  to  that  wicked  man 
(Nebuchadnezzar),  when  he  said,  '  I  will 
ascend  to  the  heighte  of  the  cloud  and 
liken  myself  to  the  Most  High'?  There 
went  forth  a  Bath  Kol  and  said  to  him, 


CHRISTIANITY.  43 

*  Wicked  man,  son  of  a  wicked  one,  scion, 
of  the  wicked  Nimrod,  who  caused  all 
under  his  government  to  rebel  against  me, 
how  many  are  the  years  of  man  ?  Seventy, 
and  if  he  be  strong,  eighty.  From  the 
earth  to  heaven  is  a  distance  of  500 
years'  travel,  the  thickness  of  each  heaven 
corresponds  to  the  same  distance,  and  the 
space  between  each  heaven  (of  the  seven) 
is  the  same.  Thou  shalt  go  down  to  /Sheol, 
to  the  sides  of  the  pit.'  "  This  passage  is 
carried  out  at  length  in  Hagigah  11. 

Acher,  an  apostate  much  noted  in  the 
very  age  of  the  apostles,  also  heard  a  Bath 
Kol  telling,  "Return  all  ye  forward  child- 
ren, except  Acher  who  knew  my  glory  and 
rebelled  against  me.."  (Hagigah).. 

About  the  same  time  the  Bath>Kol  de- 
cided the  controversy  in  legal  matters,  be- 
tween the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
in  favor  of  the  former.  The  passage  in 
Talmud  Erubin  readsjhus :  "  The  House 
of  Shammai  and  the  House  of*  Hillel  dis- 
cussed the  question  for  three  years ;  the  one 
maintained  our  interpretation  of  the  law  is 
correct,  and  the  other  claimed  the  same 
preference.  Then  went  forth  a  Bath  Kol 
and  told  them,  this  and  that  are  the  words 
of  the  Living  God,  yet  the  law  shall  be 
practiced  according  to  the  interpretations 
of  the  House  of  Hillel.  If  both  are  the 
words  of  the  Living  God,  why  did  the 
Bath  Kol  decide  in  favor  of  the  House  of 
Hillel  ?  Because  thay  were  mild  and  meek  ; 
they  not  only  repeated  the  words  of  the 


44  ORIGIN  OF 

Shammaites  with  theirs,  but  even  placed 
them  always  in  advance  *  *  *  #  *  to 
teach  thee:  whosoever  lowers  himself,  God 
will  elevate ;  and  whosoever  elevates  him- 
self, God  will  lower.  Who  is  eager  after 
greatness,  greatness  will  flee  him ;  and  who- 
soever flees  greatness,  greatness  will  seek 
him.  Whosoever  presses  the  hour  for  wealth 
(time  is  money),  time  will  press  him;  and 
whosoever  leaves  the  hour  in  the  hands  of 
Providence,  the  hour  will  favor  him."  The 
Talmud  Jerushalmi  gives  great  authority 
to  this  decision  of  the  Bath  Kol.  It  is 
stated  in  Berachoth:  "  Before  this  Bath  Kol 
went  forth,  whosoever  wished  could  do  like 
the  House  of  Hillel  or  like  the  House  of 
Shammai;  but  after  this  Bath  Kol  went 
forth,  whosoever  transgressed  the  words  of 
the  House  of  Hillel  was  guilty  of  death." 

The  Jerushalmi  supposes  that  this  decis- 
ion by  the  Bath  Kol  was  proclaimed  in  the 
Academy  of  Jamnia.  In  the  same  acade- 
my, however,  and  a  short  time  afterwards, 
the  Bath  Kol  was  forever  rejected  as  a  le- 
gitimate decision  in  points  of  legal  contro- 
versy, and  the  voice  of  the  majority  was 
adopted  instead.  The  passage  occurs  in 
Baba  Mezia,  59  6.  There  was  a  hot  contro- 
versy carried  on  between  Rabbi  Elieser  and 
Hiibbi  Joshua,  the  two  heads  of  the  acade- 
my. The  audience  did  not  know  how  to 
decide.  Two  astounding  miracles  were 
wrought  in  favor  of  the  opinion  of 
Rabbi  JSUejaar ,  but  they  did  neither  con- 
vince nor  £b.%nge  the  opinion  of  Rabbi 


CHRISTIANITY.  45 

Joshua.  Then  Rabbi  Eliezer  rose  and 
said:  "  If  I  am  right  let  the  walls  of  the 
academy  decide."  The  walls  bent,  it  says 
there,  and  began  to  fall.  Then  Rabbi 
Joshua  rose  and  rebuked  the  Avails  to  stand 
erect,  and  erect  they  stood.  Then  Rabbi 
Eliezer  said,  let  heaven  himself  decide. 
"  There  came  forth  a  Bath  Kol  and  said : 
Why  are  you  against  Rabbi  Eliezer,  whose 
decisions  are  always  correct?  Rabbi  Joshua 
rose  upon  his  feet  and  said:  'It  is  not  in 
heaven,'  i.  e.,  we  pay  no  attention  to  the 
Bath  Kol;  the  law  given  on  Sinai  ordains 
'  Thou  shalt  decide  according  to  the  ma- 
jority.' "  The  miracles  and  the  Bath  Kol 
were  set  aside,  and  Rabbi  Joshua  was  sus- 
tained. 

We  must  quote  two  more  passages :  The 
Bath  Kol  afterwards  became  a  common 
superstition.  The  Talmud  informs  us  that 
Samuel,  head  of  a  Babylonian  academy, 
fell  sick.  Resh  Lakish  and  Rabbi  Jocha- 
nan  went  to  pay  him  a  visit.  They  resolved 
te  ask  the  Bath  Kol  how  Samuel  was. 
Passing  a  schoolhouse  they  heard  a  boy 
reading  from  the  Bible:  "And  Samuel 
died,"  and  they  understood  the  Bath  Kolto 
have  informed  them,  that  Samuel  died, 
and  they  returned  to  their  respective 
homes. 

The  Bath  Kol  of  the  Talmud  is  also  ex- 
ternally like  the  "Holy  Ghost"  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  the  dove  in  which 
the  "Holy  Ghost"  comes  down  from  heaven 
upon  Jesus,  as  in  the  following  passage  of 


46  ORIGIN  ^OF 

the  Talmud  (Berachoch,  3  a):  "Rabbi 
Jose  says,  being  once  under  way  I  went 
into  one  of  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem  to  pray 
there  *  *  *  *  #  and  I  heard  there  a 
Bath  Kol  COOING  LIKE  A  DOVE  and  saying, 
Wo  to  the  children,  on  account  of  whose 
sins  I  have  destroyed  my  house,  have 
burnt  my  temple,  and  have  dispersed  them 
among  the  Gentiles." 

Without  multiplying  quotations,  we  be- 
lieve to  be  fairly  entitled  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  apostles  claimed  the  same  com- 
munication with  the  Bath  Kol  as  the  rabbis 
of  the  Pharisees  did.  Bath  Kol  could  not 
be  .rendered  into  th«e  Greek  literally,  and 
•the  "-Holy  Ghost "  was  adopted  in  its  place. 
But  the  two  things  are  identical.  It  was  a 
great  >«tep  in  advance  on  the  part  of  the 
apostles  if  they,  the  humble  and  illiterate 
men,  the  Amai  Haarez,  whom  the  rab- 
bis neglected  and  contemned,  claimed  com- 
munication with  the  Bath  Kol,  as  well  as 
ithe  learned  and  high-toned  rabbis.  It  is 
mot  at  all  likely  that  the  pretensions  of  the 
•apostles  were  above  the  highest  of  their 
age  or  different  from  them.  The  Pentecost 
miracle  is  an  embellishing  addition  of  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts,"  or  of  one  who  tran- 
scribed and  enriched  the  book  in  the  third 
century. 

In  the  academy  of  Jamnia  is  the  turning 
point,  where  Christianity  and  rabbinical 
Judaism  separated  in  opposite  directions. 
The  apostles,  like  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Hork- 
inos,  clung  to  the  Bath  Kol  and  miracles ; 


CHRISTIANITY,  47 

while  the  rabbis,  like  Rabbi  Joshua,  re- 
jected both  and  held  to  their  laws  of  exe- 
gese  and  the  decisions  of  the  majority. 
This  is  the  first  historical  point  in  the  ori- 
gin of  Christianity. 

Here,  however,  begins  the  difficulty  of 
the  honest  critic.  The  authors  of  the  Tal- 
mud, as  well  as  the  authors  of  the  New 
Testament  claim,  that  certain  persons  stood 
in  direct  communication  with  the  Deity 
through  the  Bath  Kol  or  the  "  Holy  Ghost ;" 
that  such  persons  prophesied  and  wrought 
miracles.  Both  point  to  the  same  time  and 
place,  and  have  the  same  object  in  view, 
the  support  of  religious  precepts.  The 
critic  must  either  decide  that  both  are 
right,  or  both  are  wrong,  or  one  side  is 
right  and  the  other  wrong  ;  or  he  must  find 
another  way  of  explaining  the  matter. 
The  claims  are  presented  with  equal  force 
and  authority,  at  least  to  the  critic  who 
looks  upon  books  with  the  eye  of  reason 
and  not  with  the  predelictions  of  religious 
faith.  No  side  produces  any  particular 
evidence  hi  substantiation  of  its  claims  ; 
the  allegations  are  made  and  presented  to 
us  without  any  proof;  hence  there  is  no 
ground  for  a  decision  that  the  one  side  is 
right  and  the  other  wrong.  Where,  with 
equal  pretensions  or  allegations,  no  proof 
is  offered  on  any  side,  caprice  only,  and 
not  criticism,  can  accredit  the  one  and  re- 
ject the  other.  The  comparatively  intrinsic 
value  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Tal- 
mud, as  products  of  the  human  mind,  is 


48  ORIGIN  or 

not  finally  decided  by  any  means  ;  some 
maintain  the  Body  of  Doctrine  contained 
in  the  New  Testament  is  chiefly  taken 
from  the  sources  where  the  Talmud  took 
the  same.  Aside,  of  this,  however,  the 
intrinsic  value  of  a  book  is  no  evidence  for 
all  the  statements  made  therein ;  or  else 
the  alleged  miracles  and  divine  communi- 
cations of  Mohammet  and  Zoroaster  must 
also  be  accepted  as  truths,  since  the 
intrinsic  value  of  the  Koran  and  the  Zen- 
davesta  can  not  reasonably  be  denied. 

Neither  the  Christian  nor  the  Jew  can  be 
willing  to  admit,  that  the  pretensions  to 
supernatural  communication  of  both  the 
apostles  and  the  rabbis  are  correct ;  for 
in  this  case  the  Christian  must  em- 
brace the  largest  portion  of  the  Talmud, 
and  the  Jew,  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
divine  revelations.  Nevertheless  both 
might  be  true  notwithstanding  the  opposi- 
tion of  either  party;  if  it  were  not  that 
these  oracles  from  the  same  Deity  radically 
differ  and  contradict  each  other  in  vital 
points.  To  mention  one  instance  which 
covers  the  whole  ground,  the  Bath  Kol  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  as  the  House  of  Hillel  advocated  it ;  at 
the  same  time  and  in  the  same  country  the 
"  Holy  Ghost "  decided  that  all  rabinnical 
and  biblical  laws  are  abolished.  Therefore 
both  can  not  be  right. 

Nor  have  we  a  right  to  maintain  that  both 
are  impostors,  and  alleged  to  have  direct 
communication  with  God,  when  they  knew 


CHRISTIANITY.  49 

it  was  not  true ;  for  we  have  no  more  proof 
for  one  than  the  other  decision.  There  are 
before  us  statements  of  men.  We  know 
not  the  men,  hence  we  can  not  impeach 
their  statements  from  personal  reasons. 
All  we  have  a  right  to  maintain  is,  that  the 
statements  are  not  true ;  but  we  can  not 
prove  that  the  authors  knew  them  to  be 
false. 

Therefore  we  are  forced  to  accept  the  in- 
terpretation adopted  by  Mr.  Wislicenus 
and  also  by  Mr.  Renan,  viz:  that  the  apos- 
tles (as  well  as  the  rabbis  we  add)  in  a  state 
of  intense  ecstacy,  believed  that  they  re- 
ceived direct  communications  from  the 
Deity,  through  the  "Holy  Ghost"  or  the 
Bath  Kol,  and  stated  so  in  cool  moments. 
The  revelations  were  altogether  subjective 
in  the  imagination  and  not  in  reality. 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  by  no  means 
new,  or  original  with  either  Mr.  Wislice- 
nus or  Mr.  Renan,  or  the  German  rational- 
ists ;  it  has  been  advanced  by  Moses  Mai- 
monides,  at  the  beginning  of  the  13th  cen- 
tury. He  states  in  his  philosophical  work, 
Moreh  Nebuchim,  Pa-rt  ii.  Chapter  42; 
"Wherever,  in  Sacred  Scriptures,  the  ap- 
pearing or  speaking  of  an  angel  is  men- 
tioned, it  is  a  prophetical  vision  or  dream 
only,  whether  it  is  explained  or  not,  it  is 
always  the  same."  After  applying  this 
doctrine  to  different  passages  of  Scriptures, 
he  concludes:  "  Hagar,  the  Egyptian,  was 
110  prophetess,  nor  were  Menoah  and  his 
wife  prophets.  The  wrords  which  they 


50  ORIGIN  OF 

heard,  or  imagined  to  have  heard,  are  like 
the  Bath  Kol  which  the  sages  of  old  fre- 
quently mention;  it  is  the  attribution  of 
spoken  matter  to  a  person  who  is  not  actu- 
ally present,  and  the  error  in  the  matter  is 
its  connection  with  God." 

The  listener,  paying  attention,  actu- 
ally to  his  own  internal  discourse  be- 
lieves to  be  addressed  by  an  angel  or 
another  creature  which  only  exists  in 
the  imagination  of  that  person.  The 
Bath  Kol  connects  no  speaking  person 
with  the  words  spoken,  so  doth  the  "Holy 
Ghost,"  and  imagines  words  only.  It  is  no 
error  to  imagine  the  speaking  angel  or  per- 
son, who  is  after  all  an  imagined  reality  ; 
the  error  is  in  the  belief  that  the  being  is 
an  angel  or  the  Deity, 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE   GLOSSOLOGY. 

How  did  the  Bath  Kol,  or  "  Holy  Ghost," 
manifest  himself,  to  render  his  oracles  in- 
telligible to  the  human  ear  ?  The  author 
of  "The  Acts"  answers  this  question  by 
an  additional  miracle.  He  narrates,  when 
the  apostles  and  disciples  had  been  gifted 
with  the  "Holy  Ghost,"  they  "began  to 
speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utterance."  The  tongues  of  the  vari- 
ous persons,  according  to  this  statement, 
were  the  mere  instruments  of  the  "  Ho^y 


CHRISTIANITY.  51 

Ghost."  He  moved  them,  and  caused 
them  to  express  sentiments  and  concepts 
which  originated  not  in  those  human 
minds,  and  in  this  or  that  language  which 
the  speaking  persons  had  not  known  be- 
fore. This  is  the  second  part  of  the  Pente- 
cost miracle. 

The  same  author  repeats  twice,  that  the 
"Holy  Ghost"  demonstrated  his  presence 
in  a  favored  person  by  this  phenomenon. 
Acts  x,  46,  he  narrates  as  a  proof  that  the 
"Holy  Ghost"  was  poured  also  on  the 
Gentiles,  "  for  they  heard  them  speak  with 
tongues,"  <fcc.  Again,  ^Acts  xix,  6,  he  in- 
forms us  that  Paul,  laying  his  hands  on 
certain  disciples  in  Corinth,  brought,  the 
"Holy  Ghost"  upon  them,  "and  they 
spak«  with  tongues,  a  fid  prophesied." 
The  possession  of  the  "Holy  Ghost"  and 
the  "  speaking  with  tongues  "  were  consid- 
ered inseparable  events.  Whenever  a  per- 
son was  inspired  by  the  "Holy  Ghost,"  he 
caused  him  to  speak  "with  tongues." 
This  corresponds  exactly  with  the  expres- 
sion of  the  Talmud,  as  quoted  above.  "  A 
Bath  Kol  was  put  upon  them  from  heaven," 
i.  e,  concepts  were  impressed  on  the  mind 
of  one  or  more  individuals  who  were 
caused  by  that  supernatural  power  to  ex- 
press them  in  words. 

Before  we  can  explain  that  peculiar  phe- 
nomenon, we  must  ascertain  what  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts "  in  this  passage 
understood  under  his  statement,  they  "  be- 
gan to  speak  with  other  tongues."  Luke 


52  ORIGIN  OF 

certainly  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that 
the  apostles  and  disciples  on  a  sudden  spoke 
all  sorts  of  foreign  languages,  although 
before  that  event  they  could  converse  only 
in  the  Galilean  dialect;  for  he  narrates, 
that  Jews  and  Jewish  proselytes  "  out  of 
every  nation  under  heaven  "  just  happened 
to  congregate  at  that  point  of  Jerusalem, 
where  the  apostles  and  disciples  were 
caused  to  speak  by  the  "  Holy  Ghost."  He 
goes  on  and  mentions  special  nations  from 
the  East,  from  the  Eastern  coast  of  Africa, 
from  Asia  Minor,  from  Arabia  and  Rome. 
To  all  of  them,  the  inspired  men  spoke  in 
the  various  tongues  of  those  countries,  so 
that,  they  must  have  spoken  Greek,  Arabic, 
Ethiopian,  Latin  and  the  various  dialects 
of  the  Aramaic.  The  men  who  heard  all 
these  languages  spoken  by  illiterate  Gali- 
leans, were  amazed  and  considered  it  "  the 
wonderful  works  of  God."  Still  others 
mocked  them  and  said:  "These  men  are 
full  of  new  wine." 

There  are  two  miracles  within  this  mira- 
cle. The  first  is,  that  the  persons  of  those 
various  countries  assembled  just  at  that 
moment  and  in  that  place  without  any  pre- 
vious notice  or  understanding.  Undoubt- 
edly persons  from  various  countries,  Jews 
and  Proselytes,  resided  in  Jerusalem  ;  but 
they  certainly  were  not  the  bulk  of  the 
population.  Therefore,  if  indeed  a  pro- 
miscuous crowd  gathered  about  the  apostles, 
there  may  have  been  one  or  more  from  this 
or  that  country  among  it.  But  a  multitude 


CHRISTIANITY.  53 

so  large,  that  about  three  thousand  of  them 
were  baptized,  to  consist  exclusively  or  at 
least  chiefly  of  foreigners,  and  to  meet  ac- 
cidentally in  a  city,  the  bulk  of  whose 
population  consisted  of  natives,  is  more 
than  a  common  miracle,  it  is  impossible. 
Besides,  if  men  rise  in  a  city  of  so  much 
intelligence  as*  Jerusalem  then  was,  and 
speak  well  in  all  languages  understood 
there  ;  it  must  certainly  create  surprise  and 
amazement,  it  can  not  possibly  excite  ridi- 
cule and  mockery.  It  may  be  maintained, 
that  those  who  mocked  the  speakers,  did 
not  understand  any  of  those  foreign  tongues, 
and  therefore  they  said,  "  These  men  are 
full  of  new  wine."  But  why  did  the  apos- 
tles choose  to  speak  in  foreign  tongues  and 
not  first  arid  foremost  in  the  vernacular  of 
the  country?  A  multitude  of  people  liv- 
ing in  a  large  city,  however  rude  and  illiter- 
ate it  may  be,  knows  enough  to  distinguish 
words  of  reason  and  sense  from  the  con- 
fused stammerings  of  inebriated  persons. 
Luke  pays  no  attention  to  these  two  mira- 
cles which  are  within  the  one  he  communi- 
cates ;  because  he  could  expect  with  cer- 
tainty, that  persons  who  will  believe  that 
God  on  a  sudden  pours  into  a  number  of 
men  so  many  hundred  thousand  terms,  as 
those  languages  have,  without  study  or 
conversation,  will  certainly  not  think  of 
the  two  other  miracles.  Whoever  believes, 
may  believe  one  thing  as  well  as  another. 
Whoever  believes  one  absurdity  may,  on 
the  same  principle,  believe  all  of  them. 


54  ORIGIN  OF 

Mr.  Renan*  supposes  in  this  matter,  that 
the  apostles,  at  their  entry  on  a  ministry 
destined  to  embrace  the  world,  were 
alarmed  by  the  number  of  languages, 
spoken.  But  they  believed  that  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  would  relieve  them  from 
the  obstacle  of  the  difference  of  Idioms. 
"They  pretended  that,  under  certain  sol- 
emn circumstances,  those  present  bfad 
heard,  each  in  his  own  language,  the  gos- 
pel preached  by  the  apostles."  On  the 
next  page  Mr.  Ren  an  goes  on  informing  us 
that  the  Jews,  the  Helenists  excepted, 
preferred  the  original  to  any  translation  of 
the  Bible,  which,  however,  was  quite 
natural.  They  placed  no  great  value  on 
translations.  "But  the  first  plan  of  the 
Christians  was  even  broader ;  according  to 
their  idea,  the  word  of  God  has  no  language 
peculiar  to  it ;  it  is  free,  unfettered  by  any 
idiomatic  peculiarity ;  it  is  delivered  to  all 
spontaneously  and  without  interpretation." 

Mr.  Renan  supposes  two  things,  neither 
of  which  is  true.  He  supposes  the  twelve 
apostles  thought  of  a  mission  destined  to 
embrace  the  world,  or  of  disentangling  the 
word  of  God  from  the  thraldom  of  lan- 
guage ;  while  these  are  the  views  and  doc- 
trines of  Paul,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter, 
and  not  of  "  the  twelve,"  who  did  not  think 
even  of  leaving  Jerusalem  or  the  country. 
Mr.  Renan  supposes  the  apostles  narrated 
the  Pentecost  miracle  or  Luke  told  it  after 
them,  neither  of  which  is  the  case,  as  we 

*  The  Apostles,  p.  p.  96,  97. 


CHRISTIANITY.  55 

have  demonstrated  in  the  second  chapter. 
Luke  only  and  alone  is  responsible  for  this 
story,  the  apostles  had  nothing  in  the 
world  to  do  with  it.  Luke  had  particular 
reasons  for  writing  this  story ;  but  we  can 
not  state  these  reasons  before  we  know 
what  the  expression  "speaking  with 
tongues  "  actually  signifies. 

Paul  explains  this  matter  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  He  says : 

"Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but 
the  same  Spirit. 

"And  there  are  differences  of  adminis- 
trations, but  the  same  Lord. 

"And  there  are  diversities  of  operations, 
but  it  is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all 
in  all. 

"But  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is 
given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal. 

"For  to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the 
word  of  wisdom ;  to  another,  the  word  of 
knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit ; 

"To  another,  faith  by  the  same  Spirit; 
to  another,  the  gifts  of  healing  by  the  same 
Spirit ; 

"To  another,  the  working  of  miracles ; 
to  another,  prophecy ;  to  another,  discern- 
ing of  spirits ;  to  another,  divers  kinds  of 
tongues ;  to  another,  the  interpretation  of 
tongues ; 

"  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the 
self-same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man 
severally  as  he  will." 

These,  according  to  Paul,  are  the  gifts  of 
grace  bestowed  on  the  believers,  among 
which  is  also  the  ability  of  speaking  "di- 
vers kinds  of  tongues"  given  to  some, 
while  others  are  chosen  by  the  spirit  for 
"the  interpretation  of  tongues,"  as  the  one 


56  ORIGIN  OF 

worked  miracles  and  another  prophesied. 
One  who  spoke  "  divers  kinds  of  tongues  " 
did  not  hini^elf  understand  what  he  said; 
he  needed,  another  inspired  person  to  ex- 
pound it,  one  for  "the  interpretation  of 
tongues."  Paul's  statement  contradicts 
Luke's  in  these  particular  points:  Luke,  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  passages  quoted  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  considers  the 
possession  of  the  "Holy  Ghost"  and  the 
"  speaking  of  tongues  "  inseparably  con- 
nected. With  Paul  this  is  not  the  case ; 
not  all  who  possess  the  "Holy  Ghost" 
speak  in  "  divers  kinds  of  tongues."  With 
Luke  those  possessing  the  "Holy  Ghost" 
speak  in  foreign  but  intelligible  tongues, 
which  need  neither  interpretation  nor 
comment.  With  Paul,  however,  there 
must  be  other  persons  for  "  the  interpreta- 
tion of  tongues,"  so  that  the  words  or 
sounds  uttered  by  the  inspired  ones  were 
intelligible  only  to  those  who  were  also 
inspired,  and  among  them  only  to  those 
who  were  gifted  with  the  particular  grace 
of  interpretation. 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  fully  sup- 
ported by  Paul  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of 
the  same  epistle.  Paul  rebukes  the  Corin- 
thians for  this  abuse.  He  says  (verse  2)  • 
"  For  he  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown 
tongue  speaketh  not  unto  men,  but  unto 
God — for  no  man  understandeth  him  ;  how- 
beit  in  the  spirit  he  speaketh  mysteries." 
He  continues  in  versos  4  and  5  :  "  He  that 
speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue  edifieth  him- 


CHRISTIANITY.  57 

self  *  *  *  for  greater  is  he  that  pro- 
phesieth  than  he  that  speaketh  with 
tongues,  except  he  interpret  that  the  church 
may  receive  edifying,"  He  fully  explains 
what  this  "  speaking  with  tongues  "  signi- 
fies. He  says  in  the  next  verses  (7  to  11) : 

"And  even  things  without  life  giving 
sound,  whether  pipe  or  harp.,  except  they 
give  a  distinction  in  the  sounds,  how  shall 
it  be  known  what  is  piped  or  harped  ? 

"For  if  tne  trumpet  give  an  uncertain 
sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  to  the 
battle? 

"So  likewise  ye,  except  ye  utter  by  the 
tongue  words  easy  to  be  understood,  how 
shall  it  be  known  what  is  spoken?  for  ye 
shall  speak  into  the  air. 

"  There  are,  it  may  be,  so  many  kinds  of 
voices  in  the  world,  and  none  of  them  is 
without  signification. 

"Therefore,  if  I  know  not  the  meaning 
of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that 
speaketh  a  barbarian,  and  he  that  speaketh 
shall  be  a  barbarian  unto  me." 

Paul  then  exclaims  :  "  I  thank  my  God  ; 
I  speak  with  tongues  more  than  ye  all :  yet 
in  the  church  I  had  rather  speak  five  words 
with  my  understanding,  that  by  my  voice 
I  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thou- 
sand words  in  an  unknown  tongue" 

Thus  we  know  that  the  "speaking  with 
tongues  "  was  a  superstition,  against  which 
Paul  remonstrated  with  the  Corinthians. 
He  did  it  fully  and  keenly  in  saying,  "  If? 
therefore,  the  whole  church  be  come  to- 
gether into  one  place  and  all  speak  with 
tongues,  and  there  came  in  those  that  are 
unlearned  or  unbelievers,  will  they  not  say 
that  ye  are  mad?" 
5 


58  ORIGIN  OF 

We  know  that  it  was  not  intelligible 
language  or  articulate  sounds;  it  was  an 
inarticulate  ejaculation,  a  sort  of  groaning, 
moaning,  murmuring  or  shrieking  vocifera- 
tion uttered  in  a  state  of  violent  ecstacy. 
These  inarticulate  sounds  were  expounded 
either  by  the  individual  himself  or  by 
others,  who  were  skilled  in  the  art  of  mak- 
ing words,  in  this  or  that  language,  from 
the  inarticulate  sounds  thus  uttered.  This 
is  not  very  difficult,  as  the  elementary 
sounds  thus  uttered  must  have  some  signi- 
fication in  this  or  that  language,  especially 
if  the  expounder  and  audience  are  not  very 
critical,  as  this  is  the  case  among  persons 
in  a  state  of  religious  excitement.  Both 
sounds  and  interpretation  were  arbitrary 
and  were  used  as  a  mysterious  means  to 
communicate  ideas  with  a  certain  degree 
of  awe  and  obscurity.  This  mode  of  ex- 
pression was  called  afterwards  "glossolo- 
gy,"* and  was  practiced  in  the  church 
down  to  the  third  century.  It  was  prac- 
ticed also  by  many  mystics  even  in  our 
days.  In  a  meeting  of  believers  a  man  in 
a  state  of  exaltation  utters  a  number  of 
inarticulate  sounds  under  wild  gesticula- 
tions and  in  an  exciting  tone.  Each  of 
those  present  believing  to  hear  a  revela- 
tion from  on  high  explains  those  sounds  to 
his  own  satisfaction,  and  he  will  certainly 
find  something  very  holy  in  them  ;  or  one 


*  GLOSSY  IiAtEiN  are  the  Greek  terms  which  are 
rendered  "speaking  with  tongues."  The  Greek  LA- 
LEIN  signifies  to  talk  inarticulate  sounds,  like  the  Ger- 
man JPlappern  or  Lallen.  somewhat  like  mumbling. 


CHRISTIANITY.  59 

versed  in  this  skill  expounds  for  the  rest  of 
the  audience.  This  was  still  easier  in  the 
apostolic  church  with  her  numerous  lan- 
guages and  dialects,  as  each  must  have 
found  something  of  importance  in  any 
number  of  arbitrary  sounds.  It  was  intro- 
duced and  upheld  for  the  special  purpose 
of  those  who  could  not  speak  foreign  lan- 
guages. A  Jewish  apostle,  for  instance, 
came  to  a  Greek  congregation,  he  was  not 
prepared  to  speak  in  their  language,  still 
he  communicated  to  them  special  revela- 
tions ;  in  a  state  of  exaltation  in  their  de- 
votional meetings  he  uttered  a  number  of 
inarticulate  sounds,  and  there  was  some- 
body to  expound  the  oracle ;  if  not,  each 
listener  could  understand  it  as  he  chose. 

It  may  have  been  necessary  in  the  primi- 
tive state  of  Christianity  to  resort  to  the 
glossology,  for  more  than  one  reason. 
First,  because  mystery  was  inevitably 
necessary  to  convert  heathens,  and  these 
mysterious  sounds,  understood  but  by  the 
learned  who  expounded  them,  and  the  be- 
lievers who  understood  them  at  pleasure, 
made  a  much  deeper  impression  upon  the 
marvel-loving  heathens,  than  plain  and  in- 
telligible words  could  do.  Secondly,  the 
difficulty  of  different  languages  was  over- 
come by  this  universal  vehicle.  Thirdly, 
the  apostles  and  disciples  themselves  may 
have  actually  believed  this  superstition, 
and  so  their  followers  practiced  it,  some 
from  honest  motives,  because  they  believed 
in  it,  and  others  from  motives  of  prudence. 
5'* 


60  ORIGIN  OF 

It  is  difficult  to  say  what  man  will  not  do 
or  not  believe  in  a  state  of  ecstacy  and 
under  the  influence  of  eccentricities. 

It  may  be  difficult  for  some  readers  to 
imagine  how  men  couid  suppose  only,  that 
ideas  were  communicated  in  so  fantastic 
and  uncertain  a  manner.  We  must  re- 
member, however,  that  in  all  ancient  lan- 
guages, as  well  as  in  the  present  languages 
ot  the  orient  and  the  less  civilized  people 
of  European  countries,  gesticulation  and 
inflection  of  the  voice  have  frequently 
more  to  do  than  the  words  with  the  ex- 
pression of  the  feelings  and  ideas. 

In  Greece  and  Rome*  the  musical  and 
gesticulating  pronunciation  was  retained 
in  a  high  degree.  The  quantities  of  the 
syllables  were  fixed.  Besides  this  differ- 
ence of  short  and  long,  accents  were  placed 
upon  syllables,  -the  acute,  grave,  and  cir- 
cumflex which,  we  know,  determined  the 
speaker's  voice  to  raise  or  fall.  "  The  dec- 
lamation of  their  orators,"  says  Mr.  Blair, 
"and  the  pronunciation  of  their  actors 
upon  the  stage,  approached  to  the  nature 
of  a  recitative  in  music;  was  capable  of 
being  marked  in  notes,  and  supported  with 
instruments.  The  case  was  parallel  in  re- 
gard to  gesture ;  for  strong  tones  and  ani- 
mated gestures  always  go  together." 

In  Greece  this  practice  was  so  general, 

that  Aristotle,  in  his  poetics,  considers  the 

music  of  tragedy  as  one  of  its  chief  and 

most  essential  parts.    In  Rome  gesture  was 

*See  Blair's  Lectures  on  Rhetoric,  Lecture  VI. 


CHRISTIANITY.  61 

cultivated  to  such  an  extent,  that  under 
the  reign  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius,  it  not 
only  engrossed  the  stage  so  entirely,  that 
pantomime  was  the  favorite  entertainment 
of  the  public,  and  moved  the  audience  to 
tears  as  much  as  tragedies ;  it  also  en- 
grossed the  public  oratory  so  excessively 
that  laws  were  enacted  to  restrain  the  sena- 
tors from  studying  the  pantomime  art. 

If  inflection,  gesture  and  pantomime 
played  so  important  a  part  in  convey- 
ing ideas  and  feelings  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  whose  languages  are  rich 
and  highly  cultivated,  these  elements 
must  have  been  still  more  prominent  with 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  whose  language  was 
poorer  and  their  temperament  livelier.  The 
Hebrew  and  all  its  cognate  languages  have 
musical  notes  placed  on  each  word,  to 
mark  the  quantity  of  the  syllable  and  the 
position  of  the  word  in  the  sentence.  The 
song  itself  has  been  lost,  but  not  the  inclina- 
tion to  accompany  discourse  with  numer- 
ous inflections  and  gestures.  Rabbini- 
cal students  to  this  day  employ  pecu- 
liar inflections  and  gestures  in  read- 
ing the  Talmud,  the  Pentateuch,  the  Proph- 
ets, the  Books  of  Lamentation  and  of 
Esther.  The  singing  inflection  and  ani- 
mated gesticulations  of  oriental  priests  and 
worshippers,  also  in  the  Greek  church,  the 
peculiar  recitative  of  the  Romish  priests, 
and  the  behavior  of  the  Hebrews  in  their 
synagogues  which  are  still  carried  on  in 
the  old  style,  tell  us  sufficiently  the  impor- 


62  ORIGIN  OP 

tance  of  inflection  and  gesture  among  the 

orientals. 

If  we  go  back  to  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
and  consider  the  poverty  of  language,  the 
excitability  of  the  nervous  system,  the 
liveliness  of  the  temperament,  the  common 
usage,  and  the  peculiar  state  of  mind  of 
those  who  believed  to  receive  heavenly 
communications  by  the  "Holy  Ghost"  or 
through  the  Ba'h  Kol;  we  can  easily  im- 
agine that  the  inflection  of  the  voice  and 
the  gestures  of  the  speaker,  music  and  pan- 
tomimic, conveyed  more  feelings  and  ideas 
than  words  did,  and  exercised  a  deeper  in- 
fluence on  the  audience  than  speech  could. 
The  oracles,  expressed  in  inarticulate 
sounds,  under  peculiar  gesticulations  arid 
song,  were  a  sort  of  universal  language  to 
them  which  many  at  least,  if  not  all,  could 
decypher. 

It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  apostles 
did  not  invent  the  glossology ;  they  took  it 
from  the  same  source  where  they  took  the 
"Holy  Ghost,"  viz:  from  the  pretensions 
and  pra-etices  of  the  rabbis  of  their  age. 
Having  advanced  the  allegation  to  the 
world  that  they,  as  well  as  the  learned  doe- 
tors,  communicated  with  the  Almighty  by 
means  of  the  Bath  Kol,  they  could  express 
the  messages  from  that  source  only  in  the 
same  manner  as  their  opponents  did. 

The  Talmud  makes  use  of  two  different 
expressions  in  connection  with  the  Bath 
Kol;  it  "  went  forth"  or  "  went  out "  nxr 
yotseah,  or  also  "a  Bath  Kol  was  given  upon 


CHRISTIANITY.  63 

them  from  heaven,"  TUfO  nathnah.  In 
some  passages  the  actual  enunciation  of 
the  Bath  &ol  is  omitted,  and  it  is  stated 
that  a  person  heard  that  mysterious  voice, 
j?Di?  shamang.  Wherever  the  former  ex- 
pression is  used,  "it  went  forth,"  the  re- 
cipient heard  accidentally  a  voice,  while  he 
was  in  a  state  of  exalting  devotion,  as  m 
the  case  of  the  rabbi  who  prayed  in  one  of 
the  ruins  of  Je-rusalem  and  heard  the  Batfi 
Kol  "cooing  like  a  dove,"  and  he  expound- 
ed the  voice  to  himself.  This  is  especially 
clear  in  the  passage  (Sotah  33,)  where  it  is 
narrated  that  two  high  priests,  John  the 
Amouean,  and  Simon  the  just,  heard  the 
Bath  Kol,  while  engaged  in  divine  service 
in  the  temple.  There  it  is  plainly  stated, 
fc'Bnpn  *Bnp  rvao  Sip  ynv  "He  heard  a 
voice  coming  from  the  sanctum  sanctorum," 
which  he  understood  to  say  a  certain 
prophecy  in  the  Aramaic  tongue.  Again, 
where  the  second  expression  is  used,  viz: 
"A  Bath  Kol  was  given  upon  them  from 
heaven,"  it  was  not  an  external  voice  but 
an  internal  one.  One  in  a  state  of  ecstacy 
supposed  and  maintained  to  have  received 
a  message  from  on  high,  and  uttered  it  in 
inarticulate  sounds  which  were  then  ex- 
pounded by  the  experts,  most  always  in 
Hebrew,  it  being  the  holy  language.  This 
was  not  very  difficult  in  Jerusalem,  where 
all  the  Aramaic  dialects,  the  Syriac,  Ara- 
bic, Persian,  Greek  and  Latin  languages, 
besides  the  Hebrew,  were  known*,  as  is 

*Yerushalmi    Meguillah    IV,   5    and   Kabbah   to 
Esther. 


64  ORIGIN  OF 

evident  from  the  roots  of  the  popular  dia- 
lect then  spoken  in  Judea.  Therefore,  al- 
most any  kind  of  sounds,  heard  in  a  state 
of  exaltation  or  ecstacy,  could  be  connected 
into  words  of  one  language  or  the  other, 
especially  if  the  hearer,  as  he  must  have 
done,  possessed  the  faith  that  Ged  sent 
him  a  communication. 

The  reader  will  easily  understand  why 
the  ancient  Hebrews  called  these  oracles 
Bath  Kol  "  the  daughter-voice."  The  ora- 
cle being  the  offspring  of  a  voice  which 
was  heard,  they,  in  their  poetical  mode  of 
expression,  could  only  style  it  the  son,  off- 
spring, child  or  daughter  of  a  voice.  The 
latter  word  was  preferred,  because  Kol 
"  voice  "  takes  (he  female  form  in  the  plu- 
ral number,  or  because  it  sounded  more 
poetical  to  the  oriental  ear. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  the 
apostles  and  discipJes  practiced  precisely 
the  same  interpretation  of  accidental  sounds 
and  in  the  same  manner.  In  a  state  of  de- 
votional exaltation  or  contemplative  ecsta- 
sy, any  accidental  noise  from  the  roar  of 
the  thunder  to  the  cooing  of  the  dove,  or 
any  sensation  of  unusual  joy,  pain,  happi- 
ness, sorrow,  <Src.,  could  easily  be  ascribed 
to  the  influence  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  and 
expressed  in  words,  or  in  sounds  of  which 
others  composed  words.  Therefore  the 
Pentecost  miracle  might  rest  on  the  histori- 
cal ground,  that  the  apostles  and  disciples, 
hearing  a  storm  and  thunderclaps,  and  see- 
ing a  stream  of  lightning  flashing  over 


CHRISTIANITY.  65 

their  meeting- room,  understood  this  to  be 
the  Bath  Kol,  the  enunciation  of  divine 
messages  from  on  high,  and  expounded 
them  accordingly  before  the  multitude. 
This  is  the  view  of  the  matter  adopted  by 
Mr.  Renan,  who,  in  this  case,  as  in  almost 
all  others,  makes  history  of  probabilities, 
and  more  than  a  bare  probability  can  not 
be  produced  in  support  thereof. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  know 
that  the  author  of  this  portion  of  "The 
Acts  "  had  no  intention  to  write  history  or 
even  myth ;  he  recorded  a  traditional  talc 
and  embellished  it  to  suit  his  purposes. 
He  invented  a  speech  for  Peter,  one  which 
this  apostle  never  could  have  made.  He 
speaks  of  a  crowd  which  could  not  possibly 
have  existed.  He  imitates  a  passage  from 
the  Book  of  Kings  by  a  series  of  miracles 
pressed  together  in  the  time  of  an  hour. 
He  speaks  of  storm,  thunder  and  lightning 
because  it  is  the  Pentecost  iriracle  which 
he  tells,  and  he  attempts  an  imitation  of 
the  Sinaic  scenes.  Therefore,  while  there 
is  not  a  historical  feature  in  the  whole  nar- 
rative, except  the  allegation  of  the  apostles 
and  disciples  to  possess  the  "Holy  Ghost ;" 
we  discover  everywhere  tendency  and 
special  purpose.  It  is  natural,  therefore, 
to  suppose  this  linguistic  miracle  as  well  as 
the  rest  of  the  story  was  invented  to  a  cer- 
tain purpose. 

The  purpose  for  the  invention  of  the  lin- 
guistical  miracle  is  easily  discovered.  In 
the  first  place,  the  author  of  the  narrative, 


66  ORIGIN  OF  t 

by  the  numbers  twelve,  seventy,  and  es- 
pecially a  hundred  and  twenty,  betrays  his 
intention  to  represent  the  first  Christian 
synod  as  a  body  superior  to  the  Sanhedrin 
of  the  Jews.  Whether  this  view  originated 
with  the  apostles  themselves  or  the  author 
of  the  narrative,  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  ; 
but  it  is  doubtlessly  the  intention  of  the 
narrator.  The  Talmud,  in  two  different 
places  (Sanhedrin  17,  a;  Menachoth  65,  a) 
cites  the  following  passage:  "None  shall 
be  appointed  to  the  Sanhedrin  but  men  of 
wisdom,  appearance,  stature  and  advanced 
age,  men  who  understand  necromancy  and 
the  seventy  languages,  so  that  they  need  not 
hear  cases  through  an  interpreter."  It  was 
supposed  that  the  Sanhedrin,  as  a  body, 
must  understand  the  language  ''of  every 
nation  under  heaven."  They  counted  then 
seventy  different  languages  altogether. 
Therefore  the  men  of  the  first  Christian 
synod  were  obliged,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
author  of  the  narrative,  to  converse  in  all 
tongues,  "because  that  every  man  heard 
them  speak  in  his  own  language." 

Besides  the  passage  in  Mark,  which 
Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  is  reported  to 
have  said  to  the  disciples,  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature"  (xvi,  15),  to  which  end  they 
necessarily  must  have  been  gifted  with  a 
knowledge  of  all  languages— the  narrator 
had  in  view  a  passage  in  Psalm  81,  where 
it  says  (verse  6),  "  A  language  I  know  not 
I  will  understand ;"  and  this  is  placed  there 


CHRISTIANITY.  67 

in  connection  with  the  redemption  from 
the  Egyptian  bondage.  Our  author,  by  a 
little  stretch  of  the  imagination,  thought, 
if  at  the  first  redemption,  they  understood 
a  language  hitherto  unknown  to  them ;  at 
this  second  redemption  through  Jesus,  they 
might  have  understood  all  the  languages 
hitherto  unknown  to  them.  Besides  all 
this  he  had  in  view  the  passages  of  the 
various  prophets,  the  fulfillment  of  which 
was  expected  with  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 
siah. These  prophecies  had  to  be  fulfilled 
now.  The  prophets  predict  the  return  of 
the  dispersed  sons  of  Israel  from  all  lands. 
Therefore  the  author  of  the  narrative 
assembles  on  this  occasion  the  Israelites 
from  all  lands  known  to  him.  He  makes 
special  mention  of  those  of  Lybia  and  Cy- 
rene,  to  fulfill  the  prophecy  of  Zephaniah 
(iii,  10),  who,  speaking  of  the  final  redemp- 
tion, lets  Israelites  return  home  "  from  the 
other  side  of  the  river  of  Ethiopia."  There 
again  the  author  of  the  narrative  found  oc- 
casion to  invent  the  linguistical  miracle  ; 
for  there  and  in  connection  writh  the  final 
redemption  the  prophet  says  (Zephaniah 
iii,  9),  "Then  I  will  turn  a  pure  language 
to  all  nations,  that  all  call  the  name  of 
God,  and  serve  him  in  one  accord."  He 
took  this  passage  literally,  and  inverted  it. 
Instead  of  changing  all  languages  into  one, 
he  gave  the  apostles  the  power  to  speak 
them  all,  which  serves  the  same  purpose. 

The  whole  Pentecost  story  with  its  dou- 
ble miracles  is  an  invention  either  of  the 


68  ORIGIN  OF 

writer  of  the  narrative,  or  somebody  before 
him,  so  that  it  reached  him  in  the  church 
traditions.  Its  object  is  the  announcement 
of  a  new  revelation  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, the  glorification  of  the  apostles  and 
disciples  and  placing  them  above  the  San- 
hedrin  of  the  Jews,  and  the  literal  fulfill- 
ment of  prophecies  supposed  to  point  to 
the  time  of  the  Messiah.  All  this  is  done 
so  unskillfully  that  it  is  easy  for  the  critic  to 
look  through  the  scheme  of  the  author. 
The  only  truth  underlying  this  story  is  the 
allegation  of  the  apostles  and  disciples  to 
divine  communications  from  on  high 
through  the  medium  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost," 
or  Bath  Kol,  which  are  different  names  for 
the  same  object. 

We  will  have  occasion  to  speak  once 
more  of  the  Pentecost  miracles  on  reaching 
the  history  of  Paul,  with  whom  the  idea  of 
a  second  revelation  through  Jesus  origi- 
nated. The  author  of  the  narrative  invent- 
ed a  solemn  occasion  and  brilliant  scene 
for  the  embodiment  of  Paul's  idea. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE     GOVERNMENT  OF    THE    NASCENT    CON- 
GREGATION. 

The  growth  of  the  nascent  congregation, 
the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  maintains,  was 
very  rapid.  Right  after  the  Pentecost 
miracle  three  thousand  converts  were  add- 


CHRISTIANITY.  69 

ed  to  the  120,  and  shortly  afterwards  their 
number  increased  to  5,000  believers.  Sup- 
posing that  those  converts  were  adults,  the 
total  population  of  believers  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  must  have  amounted  to  no  less 
than  15,000  souls.  This  number,  of  course, 
like  almost  all  the  others  we  met,  is  an  in- 
vention of  the  author  or  transcriber  of 
"The  Acts,"  not  merely  because  the  num- 
bers three  and  five,  like  seven  and  ten, 
being  symbolical,  are  expressions  of  un- 
known or  hyperbolical  quantities ;  but 
chiefly  because  subsequent  statements  con- 
tradict this  arbitrary  number  of  believers. 
It  is  natural  to  think,  if  the  Christian  doc- 
trine had  achieved  such  a  signal  victory  in 
the  capital,  that  5,000  adults  had  embraced 
it  within  a  few  days,  it  must  have  gained 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  believers  within 
a  short  time  in  the  provinces,  which  was 
not  the  case.  But  we  shall  find  occasion 
hereafter  to  show  the  incredibility  of  this 
number.  One  of  the  most  important  facfs 
in  contradiction  thereof  is  the  communis- 
tic and  cenobitical  form  of  government  in 
the  nascent  congregation. 

According  to  the  united  testimony  of  Jo- 
sephus,  Philo  and  Pliny,  the  Elder,  there 
existed  a  sect  in  Palestine  under  the  name 
of  Essences,  who  were  either  identical  with 
or  very  similar  to  the  Therapeuts  of  Egypt. 
Modern  researches  have  led  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  Essenees  and  Therapeuts,  in 
their  respective  organizations,  imitated  the 
Order  of  Pythagoras,  with  which  they  had 


70  ORIGIN  OF 

the  principal  features  in  common  ;  never- 
theless they  disagreed  in  many  doctrines.* 

These  Essences  constituted  a  secret  order 
with  degrees,  in  which  candidates  were  in- 
structed. Josephus  gives  us  no  account  of 
their  origin.  They  are  mentioned  for  the 
first  time  about  166  B.  C.,  in  the  time  of 
John,  brother  of  Judah  Maccabee.  The 
first  name  of  an  Essenee,  Judas,  is  men- 
tioned about  110  B.  C.,  in  the  time  of  Aris- 
tobul,  son  of  John  Hyrcan.  Philo  thinks 
the  order  was  established  by  Moses  him- 
self, and  Pliny!  says  they  existed  already 
"for  thousands  of  centuries  "  (par  saeculo- 
rum  millia).  The  Talmud  gives  no  account 
of  their  origin,  which  can  be  relied  on.  So 
we  can  only  say  with  certainty,  that  at 
least  during  a  time  of  two  centuries  before 
the  apostles  to  an  unknown  time  after  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,!  the  Essences  lived  and 
taught  their  doctrines  in  Palestine  and 
other  parts  of  Western  Asia  and  Eastern 
Africa. 

We  shall  treat  in  another  chapter  of  this 
work  on  the  peculiar  doctrines  and  dogmas 
of  this  order.  It  suffices  for  our  present 
purpose  to  know  that  the  Essenees  were 
communists  in  regard  to  property.  Jose- 
phus, in  his  "  Wars,"  book  ii,  chap,  viii,  $ 
3,  states  expressly,  that  the  Essenees  de- 
spise wealth,  and  adhere  to  the  doctrine  of 

*Vide  J.  J.  Bellermann's  Geschichtliche  Nachaich- 
ten  aus  dem  Alterthume  ueber  Essaeer  und  Thera- 
peuten.  Berlin,  1821. 

:  Hist.  Nat.  L.  V.,  cap.  16  and  17. 

fZach.  Frankel,  Monatsshrift  1853,  p.  70. 


CHRISTIANITY.  71 

common  possession,  so  that  none  of  them 
was  richer  than  the  other,  "  because  it  is  a 
law  of  the  sect,  that  every  one  who  joins  it 
gives  up  his  property  to  the  order."  "  The 
property  of  all  of  them  is  their  common 
possession,  and  all  of  them,  like  brothers, 
have  but  one  property." 

Philo,  in  his  book,  "  The  Righteous  Only 
is  Free,"?  says  of  this  sect  or  order:  "  In 
the  first  place  not  one  of  them  has  a  house 
of  his  own,  which  does  not  belong  to  all  of 
them.  For,  besides  their  living  together 
in  large  societies,  each  house  is  also  open 
to  every  visiting  brother  of  the  order. 
Furthermore  all  of  them  have  one  store  of 
provisions  and  equal  expenses  ;  they  have 
their  garments  in  common,  as  they  do  with 
their  provisions.  They  reside  together,  eat 
together,  and  have  everything  in  common, 
to  an  extent  as  it  is  carried  out  nowhere 
else."  The  section  of  the  Essences  whom 
Pliny  met  East  of  the  Dead  Sea,  had  not 
even  money  in  use  among  themselves. 

The  apostolic  congregation  imitated  the 
communistic  and  cenobitical  form  of  gov- 
ernment, as  they  borrowed  numerous  other 
doctrines  and  practices  from  that  mystic 
sect.  "And  all  that  believed  were  together, 
and  had  all  things  common  ;  and  sold  their 
possessions  and  goods,  and  parted  them  to 
all  of  them,  as  every  one  had  need."  (Acts 
ii,  44,  45.)  "  Neither  said  any  of  them  that 
aught  of  the  things  which  he  possessed 


§  Vide  Eusebius'  Hist.  Eccles.,  Lib.  viii,  cap.  12. 


72  ORIGIN  OF 

was  his  own ;  but  they  had  all  things  com- 
mon. Neither  was  there  any  among  them 
that  lacked;  for  as  many  as  were  possess- 
ors of  lands  or  houses  sold  them,  and 
brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were 
sold,  and  laid  them  down  at  the  apostles' 
feet ;  and  distribution  was  made  unto  every 
man,  according  as  he  had  need."  (Acts  iv, 
32-34.) 

The  author  of  "The  Acts,"  furthermore, 
advances  that  the  members  of  the  nascent 
congregation,  both  apostles,  disciples  and 
converts,  were  nearly  always  together  in 
one  place,  either  in  the  temple  or  at  the 
meal  in  this  or  that  house.  Luke  already 
at  the  close  of  his  gospel  informs  us  that 
the  apostles  and  disciples  "were  continually 
in  the  temple."  Again,  in  Acts  i.,  12  to  14, 
he  narrates  that  all  of  them  met  in  one 
upper  room.  "  These  all  continued  with 
one  accord  in  prayer  and  supplication." 
After  the  "  three  thousand  "  converts  had 
been  added  to  the  congregation,  "  they  con- 
tinued steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine 
and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  in  prayers."  (Acts  ii.,  42.)  "And 
they  continuing  daily  with  one  accord  in 
the  temple  and  breaking  bread  from  house 
to  house."  (Ibid.  46.)  The  same  is  repeat- 
ed after  the  number  of  converts  had  in- 
creased to  "  five  thousand."  (Ibid,  v.,  42.) 
Up  to  this  date  the  apostles  -were  the  stew- 
ards of  the  whole  congregation,  and  did 
not  only  teach  them  and  pray  with  them, 
but  they  did  also  feed  them.  But  then  a 


CHRISTIANITY.  73 

portion  of  the  congregation  complained  of 
the  neglect  of  widows  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  daily  affairs ;  and  seven  deacons 
or  stewards  were  appointed  to  manage  the 
worldly  matters  of  the  community. 

It  is  evident  that  5,000,  or  even  3.000 
adults,  with  their  children,  could  not  be  to- 
gether always,  either  in  the  temple  or  in 
any  house  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  no  less  cer- 
tain, however,  that  Luke  advances  the  idea 
that  they  were  always  together  in  one 
place,  and  divided  their  time  between 
prayer  and  the  meals.  Therefore  one  of 
the  statements  must  be  dropped  ;  either  the 
nascent  congregation  was  not  one  commun- 
istic and  cenobitical  body,  or  the  numbers 
5,000  and  3,000  are  taken  much  too  high. 
In  the  first  case,  all  passages  of  "  The  Acts" 
quoted  in  this  chapter  must  be  declared 
spurious,  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  story 
fictitious,  while  in  the  latter  case,  only  two 
numbers  need  be  taken  as  considerably 
exaggerated.  Besides,  we  have  in  favor  of 
the  former  the  fact  of  the  Essences  whose 
communistic  and  cenobitical  organization, 
as  well  as  others  of  their  forms  and,  doc- 
trines, the  nascent  congregation  may  have 
imitated  ;  while  we  have  against  the  latter 
the  abuse  of  round  figures  common  to  al- 
most all  ancient  writers.  Therefore  we  sec 
down  as  a  fact  that  the  nascent  congrega- 
tion was  communistic  and  cenobitical,  and 
the  number  of  members  must  have  been 
quite  limited,  hardly  amounting  in  adults 
and  minors  to  300  or  500  persons  at  any 


74  OBKHN  OF 

time  prior  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  although 
outsitle  of  the  Jewish  capital  the  number 
of  converts  increased  much  more  rapidly. 

It  is  quite  natural  that  this  congregation 
was  soon  impoverished  and  alms  were 
gathered  elsewhere  to  support  it.  Paul  or- 
ganized this  affair,  and  appointed  the  first 
day  of  the  week  lor  the  purpose  of  gather- 
ing the  almsj  which  were  sent  to  Jerusa- 
lem under  his  supervision.  (I.  Corin.  xvi.) 
We  find,  also,  one  Agabus  (Acts  xi,  28), 
who  collected,  alms  at  Antioch  for  the  con- 
gregation of  Jerusalem.  It  is  no  wonder, 
therefore,  that  this  congregation  was  called 
Ebionites,  "  the  needy  ones."  The  Esse- 
nees  were  an  industrious  and  economical 
class  of  people,  hence  they  could  not  be 
poor.  The  naaeent  congregatio-n  imitated 
the  communism  of  the  Essenees  without 
adopting  also  their  industry,  hence  poverty 
was  certain  to  come. 

This  "  breaking  bread  from  house  to 
house,"  and  eating  "  their  meat  with  glad- 
ness and  singleness  of  heart,"  is  almost 
literally  copied  from  Josephus'  and  Philo's 
accounts  of  the  meals  of  the  Essenees. 
Josephus  (Wars,  Book  II,  cap.  viii,  $  5), 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  cenoblt- 
ical  Essenees  : 

After  having  partaken  of  the  first  meal 
their  superiors  dismissed  them  to  their 
work,  from  which  they  returned  at  eleven 
o'clock.  Then  they  met  again  in  one  place 
each  girded  with  a  white  apron.  After 
having  washed  their  bodies  with  eold  water, 


CHRISTIANITY.  75 

they  went  into  their  house,  where  none  but 
the  initiated  were  admitted,  and  purified 
as  if  going  to  partake  of  a  sacrificial  meal, 
they  entered  the  dining  room.  Being  seat- 
ed in  proper  order,  the  baker  handed  each 
a  piece  of  bread  and  the  cook  placed  one 
simple  dish  before  each.  The  elder  prayed, 
and  none  were  allowed  to  taste  food  before 
the  prayer  was  closed.  After  the  meal  was 
taken  the  elder  prayed  again.  The  peculiar 
clothes  which  they  wore  during  meal  were 
laid  aside,  as  though  they  were  sacerdotal 
vestments,  and  each  returned  to  his  work. 
They  met  again  in  the  evening  and  in  the 
same  manner  partook  of  their  supper,  in 
company  of  visiting  brethren.  Neither 
noise  nor  confusion  desecrated  the  house; 
one  spoke  after  the  other  in  regular  order, 
the  rest  listened  silently.  The  cause  of 
this  undisturbed  order,  Josephus  thinks, 
was  their  strict  sobriety  and  frugality. 

Philo,  in  his  book  on  "  Contemplative 
Life,''  gives  a  better  detailed  description  of 
these  meals.  He  speaks,  however,  of  those 
Esseuees  who  lived  separated  during  the 
whole  week  and  met  only  every  seventh 
day,  a  practice  imitated  afterwards  by 
Paul.*  They  met  in  their  "semnyon," 
Philo  narrates,  which  had  two  apartments, 
one  for  the  men  and  another  for  the  women, 
with  a  low  partition  of  about  three  to  four 
feet  high  between,  so  that  all  could  hear 
and  see  each  other.  Philo  then  continues 
to  speak,  "  Of  their  common  meetings 

*  Acts  xx,  7 ;  I  Corinth,  xvi,  2. 
G* 


76  ORIGIN  OF 

and  their  joyful  amusements  at  their 
meals.  After  they  are  all  assembled, 
dressed  in  white,  cheerful,  and  with  the 
most  sublime  dignity,  one  of  the  elders 
gives  a  signal,  and  they  place  themselves 
in  proper  order,  their  eyes  and  hands  raised 
to  heaven,  and  in  this  position  they  pray 
to  God,  that  their  meal  may  please  him. 
After  prayer  they  lie  down  at  tbe  table 
in  order  as  they  were  initiated  into  the  so- 
ciety ;  the  men  recliae  on  their  right  hand, 
and  the  women  on  their  left,  upon  plain 
mattings.  They  would  not  allow  servants 
to  wait  on  them,  because  they  abhor  slav- 
ery; the  ^young  men  of  the  society  wait 
upon  the  company  at  table.  They  drink 
no  wine  at  those  meals;  they  drink  pure 
water,  cold  or  warm.  They  eat  no  animal 
food ;  they  eat  bread  and  salt  spiced  with 
hysop. 

"  After  the  company  is  thus  placed,  all 
are  silent.  One  of  them  proposes  a  passage 
of  Sacred  Scriptures,  which  another  of  the 
company  expounds,  and  the  others  listen 
silently.  Their  approbation  is  marked  by 
nods  or  by  a  calm  and  joyful  expression  of 
the  face;  they  express  doubts  by  raising 
one  finger  of  the  right  hand  towards  the 
head.  The  expositions  of  the  Law  consist 
of  symbols  and  allegories;  for  the  whole 
Law  appears  to  those  men  like  one  living 
animal,  the  words  are  the  body,  the 
secret  essence  is  the  soul,  in  which  the  soul 
of  the  wise  contemplates  chiefly  itself. 

"When  the    lesson  is  finished  all  clap 


CHRISTIANITY.  77 

hands  in  demonstration  of  approbation 
and  joy.  Then  the  presiding  elder  rises 
and  begins  a  song.  After  him  all  the  com- 
pany rises,  and  standing  in  order  they  lis- 
ten to  the  song  and  jpin  to  one  chorus  at 
the  end  of  each  stanza.  The  young  men 
carry  in  the  .tables  and  dishes,  and  the 
company  eats. 

44  After  the  evening  meal  they  celebrate 
the  holy  evening  service  (panuchida)  in 
this  manner.  Daring  meal  two  choirs  are 
formed,  one  of  males  and  another  of 
females,  with  a  leader  to  each.  They  sing 
hymns  of  various- measures  and  in  diverse 
melodies,  sometimes  in  duet  and  then 
again  in  chorus.  They,  march  about  in  pro- 
cession and  pause  sometimes,  always  oha-nt- 
ing  strophes  and  antistrophes  in  an  appro- 
priate manner." 

Philo  gives  then  a  full  description  of  the 
panuc/tida,  which  is  not  necessary  to  our 
purpose.  The  intelligent  reader  is  fully 
enabled  by  these  quotations  to  see  where 
the  author  of  "  The  Acts"  took  his  expres- 
sions of  "eating  their  bread  with  gladness 
and  singleness  of  heart."  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  sacrament  commonly  called 
the  Lord's  supper  is  au  imitation  of  the 
Essenian  meals,  and  especially  of  the 
panuchida.  The  nascent  congregation  imi- 
tated not  only  the  communism. and  ceno- 
bitical  life  of  one  section  of  the  Essences, 
but  also  their  peculiar  manner,  of  partak^- 
ing  meals.  The  wine  was  added*  because 
the  Pharisees  pronounced,  the  biessing 


78  ORIGIN  OF 

over  the  wine  at  the  opening  of  each  prin- 
cipal meal.  Nor  is  it  certain,  from  the  ac- 
counts of  Josephus,  that  those  Essenees 
abstained  altogether  from  wine.  To  this 
was  added  the  mystical  signification  of  the 
bread  and  wine  to  represent  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus. 

Paul,  however,  teaching  his  religion  to 
the  Gentiles  of  different  cities  and  coun- 
tries, could  not  introduce  this  anti-social 
and  impracticable  form  of  government. 
He  restricted  these  meals  which  were  in- 
tended to  replace  among  the  Heathens  their 
sacrificial  and  riotous  feasts,  to  the  rirst 
day  of  the  week,  in  imitation  of  that  sec- 
tion of  the  Essenees  which  Philo  describes. 
It  was  all  imitation,  the  crucifixion  on  the 
day  of  Passover,  the  reception  of  the 
"  Holy  Ghost  "  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
Bath  Kol  changed  into  a  "  Holy  Ghost  " 
the  government  of  the  congregation  copied 
from  the  Essenees,  the  eating  of  meals 
adopted  from  the  same  source ;  it  is  all 
copied,  and  may,  therefore,  be  true. 

Paul  was  too  circumspective  and  prudent 
a  man,  that  he  should  have  attempted  to 
impose  upon  the  Gentile  converts  the  Es- 
senean  form  of  communistic  an  i  ceno- 
bitical  government.  The  holy  meals  were 
too  .general  among  the  Heathens  that 
he  could  do  without  one ;  and  he  reduced 
them  to  one  every  week  as  among  the 
Alexandrian  Essenees  or  Therapeuts.  But 
he  soon  found  occasion  to  regret  also  this 
concession.  As  the  speaking  with  tongues 


CHRISTIANITY.  79 

was  grossly  abused  'by  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tiaas,  so  was  the  holy  supper ;  it  soon  be- 
ca«ie  a  nuisance  in  the  estimation  of  Paul, 
and  he  opposed  it  in  his  usual  and  frank 
manner.  So  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians 
(I.  Cor.  xi,  20:)  "When  ye  come  together 
therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat 
the  Lord's  supper.  For  in^ating-every  one 
taketh  before  others  his  own  supper,  and 
one  is  hungry  and  another  is  drunken. 
What  !  Have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to 
drink  in  ;  or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God, 
and  shame  them  that  have  not?  What 
shall  1  say  to  you  ?  Shall  I  praise  you  in 
this?  I  praise  you  not."  After  having 
given  them  advice  how  to  tak«  the  holy 
ineal,  he  continues:  "For  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and 
drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  dis- 
cerning th«  Lord's  body.  For  this  cause 
many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and 
many  sleep."  He  concludes  with  the  ad- 
monition: "Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when 
ye  come  together  to  eat,  tarry  one  for 
another.  And  if  any  man  hunger,  let  him 
eat  at  home,  that  ye  come  not  together  unto 
condemnation."  Also  in  II.  Peter,  ii,  13 
the  apostle  speaks  in  harsh  terms  of  the 
abuse  of  the  holy  nw?als.  He  says:  "And 
snail  receive  the  reward  of  unrighteousness, 
as  they  that  count  it  pleasure  to  riot  in  the 
day  time.  Spots  they  are  and  blemishes, 
sporting  themselves  with  their  own  de- 
ceivings  while  they  feast  with  you."  A 
similar  passage  occurs  in  the  epistle  of  Jude 


80  ORIGIN  OF 

(verse  12):  "  These  are  spots  in  your  feasts 
of  charity,  when  they  feast  with  you,  feed- 
ing themselves  without  fear— clouds  they 
are  without  water,  carried  about  of  winds," 
Ac. 

So  this  matter  wouJd  do  only  among  the 
Palestine  Christians,  who  were  used  to  Es- 
senean  ascetics,  sobriety  and  frugality ; 
among  Gentiles  used  to  riot  and  excess  at 
their  sacrificial  meals,  the  substitute  for 
those  meals — the  Lord's  supper — soon  was 
converted  into  a  source  of  sensuality  and 
excess.  It  is  no  wonder  therefore  that  these 
apostolic  feasts  of  charity  soon  were  changed 
in  the  church.  They  were  replaced  by  the 
bread  and  wine  at  the  Lord's  supper,  par- 
ceiled  out  by  a  priest,  so  that  none  should 
get  too  much. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  could  not  close 
his  remarks  on  the  government  of  the  nas- 
cent congregation  without  narrating  a 
miracle.  He  tells  the  following  story  (Acts 
v,  1  to  11) : 

"But  a  certain  man  named  Ananias, 
with  Sapphira,  his  wife,  sold  a  possession, 

"And  kept  bacK.  part  of  the  price,  (his 
wife  also  being  privy  to  it,)  and  brought  a 
certain  part,  and  laid  it  at  the  apostles'  feet. 

"  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  has  Satan 
filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  to  keep  back  part  of  the  price  of  the 
land? 

"While  it  remained,  was  it  not  thine  own  ? 
arid  after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thine 
own  power?  Why  hast  thou  conceived 
this  thing  in  thine  heart?  Thou  hast  not 
lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God. 

"And  Ananias  hearing  these  words,  fell 


CHRISTIANITY.  81 

down,  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  And  great 
fear  came  on  all  them  that  heard  these 
things. 

"And  the  yonng  men  arose,  wound  him 
up,  and  carried  him  out,  and  buried  him. 

"And  it  was  about  the  space  of  three 
hours  after,  when  his  wife,  not  knowing 
what  was  done,  came  in. 

"And  Peter  answered  unto  her.  Tell  me 
whether  ye  sold  the  land  for  so  much? 
And  ohe  said,  Yea,  for  so  much. 

"  Then  Peter  said  unto  her,  How  is  it  that 
ye  have  agreed  together  to  tempt  the  spirit 
of  the  Lord  ?  behold  the  feet  of  them  which 
have  buried  thy  husband  are  at  the  door, 
and  shall  carry'thee  out. 

"Then  fell  she  down  straightway  at  his 
feet,  and  yielded  up  the  ghost.  And  the 
young  men  came  in,  and  found  her  dead, 
and  carrying  her  forth,  buried  her  by  her 
husband. 

"And  great  fear  came  upon  all  the  church, 
and  upon  as  many  as  heard  these  things." 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  assign  nat- 
ural causes  to  this  terrible  miracle.  The 
death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  was  ac- 
counted for  by  a  violent,  though  unusual, 
shock  on  the  system  by  the  unexpected  dis- 
covery of  their  falsehood,  and  this  shock 
caused  sudden  death.  A  single  case  of  this 
kind  would  certainly  be  an  extraordinary 
event,  especially  in  the  ease  where  no  terror 
reigns,  no  severe  punishment  is  to  be  feared. 
But  that  the  same  accident  should  happen 
twice  the  same  day  and  in  the  same  place, 
and  to  husband  and  wife,  is  altogether  im- 
probable. Besides,  if  the  death  of  the  two 
persons  had  been  accidental,  Peter  and  the 
others  must  have  exceedingly  regretted 


82  ORIGIN  OF 

that  two  good  persons  died  so  suddenly  for 

so  small  and  pardonable  an  offense. 

The  most  singular  feature  of  this  story  is 
its  barbarity;  its  character  is  entirely  re- 
pugnant to  every  consciousness  of  love, 
justice  and  humanity.  With  the  calm  wick- 
edness of  a  blood-thirsty  despot,  Peter  is 
made  to  say  to  the  terrified  woman, "Be- 
hold, the  feet  of  them  which  have  buried  thy 
husband  are  at  the  door,  and  shall  carry 
thee  out."  Therefore  if  the  miracle  of  it- 
self renders  the  story  suspicious,  the  tenor 
of  the  miracle  renders  it  entirely  unaccept- 
able. Peter  can  not  thus  contradict  himself, 
so  much  every  body  must  know  of  human 
nature,  and  preach  a  religion  of  love  and 
forgiveness  of  sin,  while  on  the  other  hand 
he  acts  a  bloody  and  merciless  executioner. 
Common  sense  rejects  this  entire  story  as  a 
rude  fiction. 

There  is  tendency,  however,  in  this  story. 
Peter's  knowledge  is  marvelous  and  super- 
natural ;  he  is  the  head  of  the  congrega- 
tion, speaks  and  acts  on  her  behalf;  the 
money  is  not  given  to  the  congregation,  it 
is  laid  at  the  feet  of  the  apostles ;  a  decep- 
tion practiced  on  the  apostles  is  identi- 
cal with  one  practiced  on  the  "Holy 
Ghost,"  and  this  is  a  crime  punishable  with 
death.  Here  are  evident  traces  from  a  cen- 
tury, when  the  successor  of  Peter  was 
acknowledged  as  the  head  of  the  church 
and  the  bishops  were  her  representatives. 
An  example  was  invented  to  terrify  people, 
not  to  deceive  the  head  of  the  church  or 


CHRISTIANITY.  83 

her  representatives,  to  prompt  people  to 
bequeath  their  property  to  the  church,  and 
let  them  know  whosoever  deceives  a  priest 
and  does  not  give  him  all  he  promised,  de- 
ceived the  '*  Holy  Ghost,"  who  will  surely 
kill  him.  Only  in  a  century  of  barbarism, 
when  the  original  intentions  of  the  founders 
oi  Christianity  were  no  longer  understood,* 
this  story  t:«>u  d  be  invented  and  smuggled 
into  "  The  Acts  "  by  some  dishonest  tran- 
scriber. 

The  government  of  the  nascent  congre- 
gation, in  imitation  of  the  Essenees,  was 
certainly  mild  and  patriarchal.  The  mem- 
bers living  together,  eating  their  frugal 
meals  from  the  same  store  and  at  the  same 
table,  for  a  long  time  expected  the  imme- 
diate return  of  the  crucified  Messiah,  the 
restoration  of  the  Davidian  throne  and  the 
redemption  of  Israel.  With  this  expecta- 
tion and  hope,  it  was  natural  to  them  that 
they  sold  all  they  had  and  sacrificed  it  to 
the  sustenance  of  the  congregation.  We 
have  seen  the  same  thing  done  here,  when 
the  end  of  the  world  was  predicted.  After 
they  had  sold  all  they  had  and  it  was  all 
spent,  the  communistic  and  cenobitical  or- 
ganization was  perfected,  alms  came  from 
abroad,  and  they  continued  in  this  state  for 
many  years,  most  likely  to  the  time  when 
they  were  expelled  altogether  from  Jerusa- 
lem during  the  Roman  war.  So  far  we  be- 
lieve to  have  extracted  all  the  facts  from 


84  ORIGIN  OP 

our  sources  relating  to  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity.* 


CHAPTER  V. 

ON  THE  MIRACLES. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts"  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  story  narrates  that  the  apostles, 
especially  Peter  and  John,  wrought  mir- 
acles. He  states  first  in  general,  "And 
many  signs  and  wonders  were  done  by  the 
apostles,"  (Acts  ii,  43.)  He  repeats  this 
statement  (Ibid,  v,  12,)  "And  by  the  hands 
of  the  apostles  were  many  signs  and  won- 
ders wrought  among  the  people."  He  then 
gives  some  details  of  these  signs  and  won- 
ders thus:  "Inasmuch  that  they  brought 
forth  the  sick  into  the  streets,  and  laid  them 
on  beds  and  couches,  that  ^at  least  the 
shadow  of  Peter  passing  might  overshadow 
some  of  them.  There  came  also  a  multi- 
tude out  of  the  cities  round  about  Jerusa- 
lem, bringing  sick  folks,  and  those  which 
were  vexed  with  unclean  spirits;  and  tluy 
were  healed  every  one." 

The  superstition  that  the  shadow  of  Peter 
healed  the  sick  is  not  ascribed  to  the 
apostles,  nor  is  it  maintained  that  cures 
were  effected  thereby ;  the  author  only  in- 
forms us  that  Peter's  reputation  was  so 
great  among  the  people  that'  many  were 

*The  ancient  Jews  had  a  tradition,  that  the  number 
of  disciples  altogether  consisted  of  320  uncircumcised 
persons.  See  Ibn  Ezra  to  Daniel  xii,  2,  and  Kashi  to 
Sanhedrin  65  b,  Amsterdam  edition. 


CHRISTIANITY.  .  85 

led  to  credit  the  superstition,  that  even  the 
passing  shadow  of  Peter  was  sufficient  to 
cure  diseases  and  to  banish  unclean  spirits. 
This  is  Hyperbolic,  of  course,  and  intended 
to  glorify  Peter.  Had  Peter,  indeed,  en- 
joyed so  extraordinary  a  reputation  among 
so  superstitious  a  class  of  people,  the  cause 
of  Christianity  must  necessarily  have  met 
with  much  better  success  in  and  about  Je- 
rusalem than  was  actually  the  case. 

A  special  cure  by  Peter  and  John  is  men- 
tioned in  Acts  iii,  2.  A  man,  lame  "from 
his  mother's  womb,"  was  carried  daily  to 
the  gate  of  the  temple,  "  to  ask  alms."  One 
day,  on  seeing  Peter  and  John,  he  asked 
alms  of  them  ;  but  Peter  cured  him,  so  that 
"  he  leaping  up,  stood  and  walked,  and  en- 
tered with  them  into  the  temple,  walking, 
and  leaping,  and  praising  God."  This 
miracle  created  great  astonishment  among 
the  multitude,  for  the  man  vtas  already 
forty  years  old.  The  crowd  gathered  about 
the  apostles  "  in  the  porch  that  is  called 
Solomon's."  Peter  embraced  this  oppor- 
tunity to  preach  his  doctrines  to  them, 
-which  increased  the  number  of  believers 
to  "  five  thousand,  and  led  to  the  arrest  of 
the  two  apostles." 

The  speech  put  in  the  mouth  of  Peter  on 
this  occasion  belongs  again  to  the  author  of 
"  The  Acts."  This  is  evident  from  the  use 
of  the  terms  "  Son  of  God"  and  "  the  Holy 
One,"  in  connection  with  Jesus,  of  which 
neither  Peter  nor  the  Ebionites  knew  any 
thing,  nor  did  they  ever  admit  any  such 


86  ORIGIN  OF 

doctrine.  Jesus  was  to  them  the  Messiah, 
or  the  Christ,  as  it  is  called  in  Greek.  With 
Peter,  as  is  evident  almost  from  the  same 
passage,  Jesus,  was  a  prophet  like  Moses 
(iii,  22,  23,  24.)  But  as  we  shall  dwell  on 
this  point  at  some  length,  we  pass  over  here 
to  another.  The  highpriest  Anaiiias,  a 
Sadducee,  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
this  scene.  This  can  only  be  the  same 
highpriest  who  had  the  apostle  James 
stoned,  viz.:  Ananias,  the  son  of  Ananias. 
He,  according  to  Josephus  (Antiqu.  xx,  ix, 
1)  was  appointed  to  his  office  by  King 
Agrippa  II,  and  exercised  stern  severity, 
because  "  he  was  also  of  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees,  who  are  very  rigid  in  judging 
offenders  above  all  the  rest  of  the  Jews," 
as  Josephus  says.  The  highpriest  slew 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  when  Festus 
was  dead,  and  the  new  procurator  of  Judea, 
Albinus,  "was  but  upon  the  road."  This 
Albinus  came  to  Judea  in  the  year  62,  A.  0. 
In  "  The  Acts,"  however,  this  scene  and 
speech  and  the  subsequent  arrest  of  Peter 
and  John  are  represented  as  following 
shortly  after  the  Pentecost  miracle,  hence 
about  two  months  or  so  after  the  crucifixion. 
We  merely  call  attention  here  to  this  utter 
confusion  of  dates,  on  which  we  must  treat 
at  length  hereafter,  to  show  that  neither 
the  miracle,  nor  the  scene,  the  speech  and 
subsequent  arrest  of  Peter  and  John  are 
historical. 

Peter   also    healed  a  man   of  the  palsy. 
His  came  was  Eneas.    He  had  kept  his  bed 


CHRISTIANITY.  87 

eight  years.  In  the  same  chapter  we  are 
also  informed  in  a  little  story  that  a  certain 
pious  woman  from  Joppa,  whose  name  was 
Tabitha  or  Dorcas,  died  after  a  brief  illness. 
Peter  then  at  Lydda  was  sent  for.  He  came, 
prayed,  and  said,  "Tabitha,  arise."  The 
dead  woman  obeyed;  she  rose  and  lived, 
"and  many  believed  in  the  Lord."* 

Paul  worked  no  miracles.  It  is  narrated 
of  him,  indeed  (Acts  xxviii,  3)  that  a  viper 
fastened  to  his  hand  without  doing  him 
any  harm ;  but  he  says  not  that  he  per- 
formed a  miracle.  He  speaks  of  "  mighty 
signs  and  wonders  by  the  power  of  the 
spirit  of  God,"  (Romans  xv,  19);  but  he 
may  have  imagined  them  in  the  power  of 
his  eloquence  which  enabled  him  to  preach 
the  Gospel  "  from  Jerusalem,  and  round 
about  unto  Illyricum,"  especially  as  he 
says  (I.  Corinthians  i,  22,)  "  For  the  Jews 
require  a  sign,  and  the  Greeks  seek  after 
wisdom."  Again  he  says  (Ibid,  ii,  4)  that 
his  preaching  "  was  not  with  enticing  words 
of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  of 
the  spirit  and  of  power  ;  "  but  this  points 
to  no  miracles;  it  points  much  more  to 
mighty  appeals  to  the  sentiments  and  feel- 
ings in  preference  to  logical  evidence.  He 
speaks  of  visions  and  revelations  (II.  Corin- 
thians xii,  1,)  but  not  of  miracles  performed 
on  others,like  those  of  Jesus,  Peter  or  John. 

*  A  similar  story  (Acts  xx,  7,  tfcc.,)  of  Paul,  while  at 
Troas,  is  not  narrated  as  a  miracle.  Eutychus  fell 
down  from  the  third  loft,  "  and  was  taken  up  dead." 
Bui  he  was  not  dead,  for  Paul  said,  "  Trouble  not 
yourselves,  for  his  liie  is  in  him."  It  was  no  miracle. 


88  ORIGIN  OF 

The  same  is  the  case  in  the  passage  I.  Thes- 
sal.  (i,  5)  and  in  II.  Thesal.  (ii,  9.)  These  are 
the  passages  on  which  Mr.  Kenan  bases  his 
allegation  that  Paul  believed  in  mi  nicies.! 

No  critical  reader  will  find  therein  any 
inference  even  entitling  him  to  such  an  al- 
legation as  a  matter  of  history. 

The  only  passage  which  might  possibly 
commit  Paul  as  a  believer  in  miracles  is 
1.  Cor.  xii,  where  he  speaks  of  the  gifts  of 
grace.  "For  to  one  is  given  by  the  spirit 
the  word  of  wisdom;  to  another  the  word 
of  knowledge  by  the  same  spirit ;  to  another 
faith  by  the  same  spirit;  to  another  the 
gifts  of  healing  by  the  same  spirit;  to  an- 
other the  working  of  miracles ;  to  another 
prophecy;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits  ; 
to  another  diverse  kinds  of  tongues;  to 
another  the  interpretation  of  tongues."  But 
in  the  same  chapter  (verses  23.  29,  30,)  he 
evidently  ascribes  wisdom  to  the  apostles, 
knowledge  to  the  prophets,  faith  to  the 
teachers,  and  below  these  three  classes  lie 
places  those  who  work  miracles,  heal  the 
sick,  speak  with  diverse  tongues,  or  inter- 
pret, so  that  neither  of  these  lower  func- 
tions belonged  to  the  apostles.  This  passage 
proves  only  that  Paul  admitted  the  Gentile 
Christians'  pretensions  to  work  miracles, 
heal  the  sick,  <fec.;  it  admits  by  no  means 
that  he  believed  any  thing  of  the  kind. 

The  gift  of  prophecy  of  which  Paul  speaks 
is  not  a  prediction  of  future  events ;  it  is 
merely  a  sort  of  trance,  something  akin  to 

f  The  Apostles,  p.  123. 


CHRISTIANITY.  89 

speaking  with  "  diverse  tongues,"  with  the 
distinction  that  the  prophets  spoka  intelli- 
gible words,  while  those  of  the  diverse 
tongues  did  not.  This  gave  rise  to  great 
oonfusion  in  the  primitive  churches,  as  is 
evident  from  the  words  of  Paul,  (I.  Corinth, 
xiv,  26,  <fco.) : 

"How  is  it  then,  brethren?  when  ye 
come  together,  every  one  of  you  hath  a 
psalm,  hath  a  doctrine,  hath  a  tongue,  hath 
a  revelation,  hath  an  interpretation.  Let 
all  things  be  done  unto  edifying. 

"  If  any  man  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
let  it  be  by  two,  or  at  the  most  by  three,  and 
thai  by  course ;  and  let  one  interpret. 

"  But  if  there  be  no  interpreter,  let  him 
keep  silence  in  the  church ;  and  let  him 
speak  to  himself,  and  to  God. 

"  Let  the  prophets  speak  two  or  three, 
and  let  the  other  judge. 

"  If  any  thing  be  revealed  to  another  that 
sitteth  by,  let  the  first  hold  his  peace. 

"  For  ye  may  all  prophesy  one  by  one, 
that  all  may  learn,  and  all  may  be  com- 
forted. 

"And  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  sub- 
ject to  the  prophets. 

"  For  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion, 
but  of  peace,  as  in  all  churches  of  the 
saints. 

"  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
churches  ;  for  it  is  not  permitted  unto  them 
to  speak;  but  they  are  commanded  to  be 
under  obedience,  as  also  saith  the  law. 

"And  if  they  will  learn  any  thing,  let 
them  ask  their  husbands  at  home  ;  for  it  is 
a  shame  for  women  to  speak  in  the  church. 

"What!  came  the  word  of  God  out  from 
you  ?  or  came  it  unto  you  only  ? 

"If  any    man    think    himself   to    be    a 
prophet,  or  spiritual,  lot  him  acknowledge 
that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  aru 
tlui  commandments  of  the  Lord. 
7 


90  OUJGI.N  OF 

"But  ii  any  man  foe  ignorant,  kt  hi.ni  be 
ignorant. 

"Wherefore,  brethren,  covet  to  prophesy, 
iind  forbid  not  to  speak  with  tongues. 

"Let  all  things  \»e  done  decently  and  in 
order." 

It  is  true  that  Paul  recommended  charity 
as  a  Tirtue  superior  to  all  gifts  of  grace 
which  he  enumerates,  superior  even  to  faith 
and  the  gift  of  prophesy  (I.  Corinth.  xiii,2,) 
hence  it  does  not  appear  that  he  felt  any 
high  admiration  for  miracles,  prophecy ? 
healing,  or  the  other  gifts  of  grace,  as  then 
claimed  by  the  Gentile  Christians ;  but  it 
is  no  less  true  that  those  Gentile  Christians 
claimed  to  be  in  possession  of  those  powers, 
and  they  did  so  up  to  the  third  century. 
Who  was  the  originator  of  this  perversion 
of  the  understanding  among  the  Gentiles  ? 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Greco-Roman 
pagans  had  their  demonology,  exorcism, 
necromancy,  thaumaturgy,  oracles,  and 
prophets,  connected  with  the  most  abhor- 
rent practices  of  debauchery,  cruelty  and 
deception.  But  in  the  form  as  we  meet 
those  superstitious  in  "  The  Acts  "  and  the 
Epistles,  they  arc  of  Jewish  origin,  as  we 
shall  prove  instantly.  Paul  having  been 
the  originator  of  Gentile  Christianity,  he 
must  have  approved  of  them  either  as  a 
matter  of  prudence,  as  he  has  done  in  many 
other  cases,  to  destroy  them  gradually  by 
the  influx  of  truth  and  light  from  the  source 
of  revelation,  as  it  could  not  possibly  be 
done  nt  once,  and  not  even  attempted  witli- 
o;  u  hisca  LS<  or  he  replaced  those 


CHRISTIANITY.  91 

Pagan  superstitions  by  the  milder  or  prac- 
tically harmless  Jewish  ones,  which  he  may 
have  believed  himself  or  not. 

Thus  much  is  sure,  if  Paul  only  counte- 
nanced those  superstitions,  the  other 
apostles  must  have  done  so  before  him  ;  for 
he  was  not  the  man  to  invent  superstitions. 
He  accommodated  himself  to  obstacles 
which  he  could  not  remove.  We  may, 
therefore,  set  down  as  a  fact  that  the 
apostles  and  the  primitive  church  believed 
in  demons,  exorcism,  necromancy,  and 
marvelous  cures,  or  pretended  to  do  so. 
This  fact  afterward  gave  rise  to  the  wonder- 
ful stories  which  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  " 
and  of  the  four  Gospels  narrated  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles.  In  confirmation  thereof 
we  will  quote  some  of  the  Jewish  supersti- 
tions then  existing,  as  the  Talmud  and  Jo- 
sephus  narrate  them,  and  we  will  find  the 
apostles  did  precisely  with  these  supersti- 
tions as  they  did  with  the  Bath  Kol  and  the 
glossology  ;  they  stood  in  their  respective 
age,  and  adopted  its  aberrations.  We  will 
divide  the  material  into  demonology,  exor- 
cism and  thaumaturgy,  miracles,  mar- 
velous cures,  and  prophecies. 

The  severity  of  punishments  threatened 
by  the  Laws  of  Moses  to  persons  who  prac- 
tice divination,  enchantment  or  necro- 
mancy, to  wizards,  witches  and  observers 
of  times,-  is  proof  positive  not  only  of  the 
existence  of  those  superstitious  practices 

*  Iteuter.  sviii.  10;  Lev.  xvili,  21;  six,  2£.  31 ;  xx, 
27. 

7* 


92  ORIGIN  ov 

to  au  alarming  degree  among  tho  ancient 
Hebrews,  but  also  of  the  origin  of  those 
aberrations  of  the  mind  in  Egypt.  Still 
there  is  no  evidence  of  any  demonology  in 
these  laws.  Both  necromancy,  asking  the 
dead  to  reveal  future  events,  and  the  Ob 
consulting  with  familiar  spirits,  only  relate 
to  the  spirits  of  deceased  persons.  The 
witch  of  Endor  (I.  Sam.  xxviii)  who  is 
called  a  Baaloth  Ob  has  no  connection  with 
any  demons,  she  plainly  conjures  the  spirit 
of  the  deceased  Samuel.  Thessalonian 
women  were  known  in  Greece  as  experts 
in  this  secret  art.  They  sprinkled  blood 
upon  the  body  of  the  dead  whom  they  in- 
tended to  invoke,  ottered  libations  to  the 
soul  of  the  deceased  one,  and  were  then 
certain  that  he  would  answer  to  their 
queries.  The  Syrians  also  practiced  this 
superstition,  only  more  inhuman  than  the 
Greeks.  They  killed  little  children,  cut 
their  heads  off,  salted  and  embalmed  them, 
then  they  engraved  upon  a  golden  tablet 
the  name  of  the  evil  spirit  to  whom  this 
abhorrent  sacrifice  was  made,  upon  which 
they  put  the  head  of  the  murdered  child, 
placed  wax  tapers  around  it  and  prayed  to 
it  as  to  an  idol;  this  caused  the  head  to 
answer  to  their  queries.  The  early  Chris- 
tian writers  firmly  believed  in  the  reality 
of  this  superstition,  and  charged  the  Em- 
peror Julius  Apostate  with  the  practice 
thereof. 

It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  whether  the  Ob 
of  the  ancient  Hebrews  was  like  either  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  93 

Greek  or  the  Syrian  practice.  It  appears  not 
to  have  been  like  either;  tor  the  witch  of 
Endor  was  certainly  not  in  possession  of 
Samuel's  body,  hence  it  was  not  similar  to 
the  Greek  practice,  and  she  conjured 
Samuel's  spirit  himself  in  the  presence  of 
Saul,  hence  it  was  not  like  the  Syrian  prac- 
tice. Therefore  the  laws  are  no  evidence 
of  any  existing  demonology. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  ancient 
Hebrews  knew  the  Satyrs  like  the  Egyp- 
tians and  Greeks,  the  hairy  and  lascivious 
Satyrs  with  the  goat's  feet,  and  loved  to 
make  sacrifices  to  them  f  Also  the  Shedim 
or  demons  are  mentioned  in  Deut.  xxxii, 
17,  as  objects  honored  by  sacrifices. 

Beside  these  there  was  the  evil  spirit 
which  infuriated  King  Saul  and  the  spirit 
of  falsehood  in  the  parable  of  the  prophet 
Michiah,  (I.  Kings  xxii,  19,)  to  open  a  wide 
field  to  the  fantasy,  partly  to  adopt  from 
other  nations  and  partly  to  produce  de- 
mons of  all  sorts  and  classes.  Another 
starting  point  for  a  vast  demonology  was 
offered  in  the  words  of  Ecclesiast.  ii,  8, 
where  King  Solomon  is  represented  to  have 
said  of  himself,  "I  procured  myself  mt? 
ftVllBn,"  which  most  likely  signifies  "  cap- 
tivating and  charming  beauties ;"  but  the 
words  Shiddah  and  Shiddoth  sounding  so 
much  like  Shed  and  Shedah,  "  demons,"  be- 
ing actually  derivatives  of  the  same  Hebrew 
root,  Solomon  was  made  also  master  of  the 

ILevit.    xvii,   17;    Isaiah    xiii,  21;    xxxiv,   14;   II. 
Chron.  xi,  15. 


94  OBIGIN  oy 

demons,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  and  his 

name  was  c-onaected  with  numerous  ghost 

stories. 

The  first  demon  mentioned  in  the  Bible 
is  Satan,  who  is  a  poetical  fiction  in  the 
book  of  Job.  In  Zechariah  iii,  Satan  is  a 
personification  of  the  "  filthy-  garments  '' 
in  verse  3,  or  the  sins  which  "  prevent  "  or 
"hinder"  the  high  priest  Joshua  to  stand 
uprightly  and  firmly  before  the  angel  of 
the  Lord.  Still  both  the  Satan  of  Job  and 
Zechariah,  two  figures  which  have  nothing 
in  common  besides  the  name,  were  made 
to  the  prince  of  evil,  of  darkness,  and  of 
wickedness,  the  Ahriman  of  the  Persian 
mythology,  the  Typhon  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  the  Pluto  of  the  Greeks.  The  Hebrews 
gave  him  the  name  Samael,  "  the  destruc- 
tive power,"  Yetser  hara,  "  the  evil  inclina- 
tion," and  Malocli  Hamaves,  "the  angel  of 
death,"  or  also  the  Greek  name  Kataigorej. 
"  prosecutor." 

From  these  few  starting  points  the  He- 
brews developed  a  demonology  peculiar  to 
itself.  The  ancient  rabbinical  sources 
mention  the  following  different  demons 
fp'TB  Mazikin,  "evildoers;"  nS^n'J^Sn 
Malachai  Habalah  "  seductive  angels  "  or 
messengers,  nxniB  nn  Kwih  Tumcah,  "  the 
unclean  spirit  ;"  and  n>H  mi  Ruah  Raah, 
"the  evil  spirit  ;"  all  of  which  have  the 
generic  name  of  DHiV  Shcdim,  "  demons." 
Besides,  there  are  mentioned  VS  Lilin,  "  fe- 


t  Soai.so  R>?velat'"on.s  of  Jo'i  )   ;         ) 


CHRISTIANITY.  93 

male  demons."  Tho  origin  of  these  demons 
is  not  certain.  In  one  place  of  the  Talmud 
they  are  said  to  be  descendants  of  Adam  at 
a  time  between  the  birth  of  Abel  and  Seth 
(Erubin  18  a  and  elsewhere.)  But  other- 
wise it  is  maintained  God  created  them 
Friday  evening  in  the  last  hour,  when  the 
Sabbath  set  in,  creation  was  closed  and  the 
demons  received  no  bodies.  Still  they  were 
supposed  by  some  to  have  a  hairy  body  and 
the  legs  of  birds. 

The  mother  of  the  demons  is  the  Lilith 
(Nbcturna,)  the  primitive  night  of  Egyp- 
tian mythology.  She  is  like  the  Grecian 
Proserpine;  only  that  the  Lilith  of  the 
Talmud  is  depicted  as  a  beautiful  and  las- 
civious woman.  Later  writers  mention 
four  mothers  of  the  demons,  viz.:  Lilith, 
Naamahj  Aggweth  and  Mahelah,  which  ap- 
pear synonymous  with  Prosei'pine,  Venus, 
Hekate  and  Lamia.  The  husband  of 
Naamah  or  Venus  was  fihomcron,  Vulcain, 
whose  son  was  Ashinedai,  the  prince  of 
demons.  Harman,  the  Persian  Ahriman, 
is  mentioned  as  a  son  of  Lilith.  The  souls 
of  wicked  persons  after  death  are  also 
changed  to  demons. 

As  regards  the  nature  of  the  demons,  the 
rabbis,  it  appears,  were  well  informed. 
Tiey  state  (Chagiga  16  a)  "Six  things  are 
said  of  the  demons ;  in  three  things  they 
ars  like  angels  and  in  three  like  men.  They 
ar«  like  angels  in  this  ;  they  have  wings 
liki  angels,  fly  from  one  end  of  the  world 
to  Another,  and  know  future  events  like 


96  ORIGIN  OF 

the  angels.  How  can  they  know  this? 
They  hear  it  behind  the  curtain  like  the 
angels.  In  these  three  tilings  they  are  like 
men  ;  they  eat  and  drink,  propagate  their 
species  and  die  like  men."  It  is  also  known 
that  they  are  very  intelligent  and  inquisi- 
tive. It  is  said  of  their  prince  Ashmedai 
that  "  he  daily  ascends  to  heaven  to  learn 
in  the  school  of  heaven,  and  then  he  de- 
scends to  the  earth  to  learn  in  the  school  on 
earth,"  (Guitin  68  a.)  Elsewhere  it  is  nar- 
rated that  Rabbi  Hauina  bar  Papa  went 
out  at  night  to  distribute  charity,  when  he 
was  met  by  "  the  chief  demon,"  viz.:  Ashme- 
dai who  threatened  to  do  him  harm  for  im- 
posing on  his  domain,  night ;  but  the  Rabbi 
discussed  Scriptural  passages  with  the  de- 
mon and  proved  to  him  that  he  had  no 
right  to  injure  one  who  was  ©ut  at  night  to 
distribute  charity.  Of  course,  finally  the 
Rabbi  drove  the  demon  to  flight  (Jeru- 
shalmi,  Shekalim  v.)  Again  Raba  informs 
us  that  the  demons  every  Sabbath  crowded 
the  academy  to  listen  to  the  lectures,  and 
the  torn  garments  of  the  students  must  be 
ascribed  to  the  same  cause — the  demons 
press  themselves  so  close  to  them.  (Ber- 
achoth  6  a.}  These  passages  will  suffice  to 
show  a  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  de- 
mons among  the  ancient  Hebrews;  they 
were  looked  upon  as  superior  intellects,  as 
sagacious  and  heartless  beings,  prudent  an<l 
wicked.  It  is  an  eminently  psychologies! 
idea.  Beings  gifted  with  superior  intellect 
and  none  but  brutal  and  wicked  propensi- 


CHRISTIANITY.  97 

ties  are  demons  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
term. 

The  office  and  function  of  all  these  de- 
mons is  injury,  evil  to  man ;  but  they  are 
named  according  to  the  different  kinds  of 
evil  which  they  inflict.  The  Mazikin  inflict 
bodily  injuries  and  perpetrate  mischief  in 
an  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  like  the 
Satyrs  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Fauns  of  the 
Romans.  They  are  very  numerous  on 
earth,  but  invisible.  Aba  Benjamin  says, 
"  If  the  eye  was  permitted  to  see,  no  crea- 
ture could  stand  the  Mazikin."  Rabbi  Huna 
says,  "  Every  one  of  us  has  a  thousand  (Ma- 
zikin) at  his  left  hand  and  ten  thousand  at 
his  right  one."  (Berachoth  6  a.)  These 
Mazikin  are  most  frequently  in  ruins, 
(Berachoth  3  a,)  in  unclean  places,  as  in 
privies,  (Berachoth  G2a,)  in  sewers  through 
which  the  waste  water  flows  from  houses. 
(Cholin  105  6.)  In  that  place  of  the  Talmud 
the  following  story  is  told :  Abai  said,  in 
the  first  place,  I  believed,  it  is  prohibited 
to  sit  under  the  sewers  of  houses  on  ac- 
count of  the  water ;  but  Mar  told  me  it  is 
on  account  of  the  demons.  A  man  carried 
a  barrel  of  wine ;  being  tired,  he  set  it  down 
on  a  sewer,  and  instantly  a  demon  came 
and  broke  the  barrel.  The  man  went  to 
Mar,  son  of  Rabbi  Ashai,  and  complained ; 
the  Rabbi  put  the  demon  under  ban,  and 
he  appeared.  The  Rabbi  asked  why  he 
btoke  the  barrel,  and  the  demon  answered, 
the  man  put  the  vessel  right  upon  my  ear. 
the  Rabbi,  however,  said,  "Thou  hast  noth- 


9S  ORIGIN  OF 

ing  to  do  at  a  place  where  so  many  people 
pass ;  thou  art  wrong ;  go  and  pay  the 
damage."  The  demon  paid  the  damage 
after  he  had  stolen  the  money  from 
piles  which  were  not  counted ;  for  he 
said  that  his  confrere  had  no  power  over 
things  "  bound,  sealed,  measured  or 
counted."  It  appears  that  the  rabbis 
managed  the  demons  without  much 
trouble. 

The  same  Abai  also  narrates  in  the  same 
place  that  the  Mazikin  also  frequent  the 
waters  like  the  Greek  nymphs.  It  is  nar- 
rated there  :  "  Rabbi  Papa  had  in  his  house 
one  conversant  with  demons.  One  day  he 
sent  him  to  the  river  to  fetch  water,  the 
servant  stayed  away  a  good  while.  On  re- 
turning, the  Rabbi  asked  him  why  he  tar- 
ried so  long,  and  the  servant  answered: 
"  I  luul  to  wait  till  the  evil  waters  passed 
away,  as  the  demons  had  drunk  thereof." 
This  was  so  common  a  superstition  that 
nobody  would  drink  water  before  he  had 
spilt  a  few  drops  from  the  vessel,  to  pour 
out  "the  evil  waters"  which  the  demons 
leave  on  the  surface. 

Those  demons  were  also  present  to  do  in- 
jury where  things  or  persons  were  in  even 
numbers— two,  four,  six,  &c— where  two 
glasses  of  wine  were  drunk,  and  not  one, 
three  or  five.  This  superstition  is  narrated 
at  length  in  the  Talmud  (Pesachim  105,  109, 
110  and  111,)  where  even  the  magic  spells 
arc  recorded  to  banish  the  demons  which 
preside  over  such  incidents. 


CHEISTIANITV.  90 

It  appears  that  the  Mazikin  aro  personifi- 
cations of  physical  causes  of  diseases,  the 
miasma  rising  from  unclean  places,  im- 
pure ingredients  of  the  water,  the  foul 
air  in  the  ruins,  &c.;  but  the  superstition 
connected  with  even  numbers  is  inex- 
plicable to  us. 

The  Melachai  Habalah  or  "  Seductive 
Angels  "  are  the  counterparts  of  the  Mazi- 
kin. The  latter  demons  injure  the  body, 
and  the  former  seduce  the  soul  to  evil,  and 
then  scorn  with  diabolic  pleasure  at  the 
corrupt  soul.  Rabbi  Ishmael  ben  Elisha 
states  (Berachoth  51  a)  that  the  archangel 
Suriel*  told  Mm  among  other  things, 
'•Legions  of  seductive  angels  sit  and  wait 
impatiently  for  man,  saying,  when  will 
man  commit  one  of  these  things  and  be  en- 
snared!" The  things  prohibited  there  by 
Suriel  are  riot  of  a  strictly  moral  character  ; 
still  the  passage  is  clear  enough  in  showing 
that  these  demons  wait  for  man's  seduc- 
tion. Further  on  the  same  Rabbi  states 
(sec  Mcharsho  to  this]  that  these  demons 
are  "the  unclean  powers  who  wait  anx- 
iously for  man  to  injure  and  kill  him," 
morally,  of  course.  Another  passage  of 
the  Talmud  reads  thus  (Kethuboth  104): 
"  Rabbi  Elieser  said,  when  the  wicked  man 
is  blotted  out  from  this  world,  three  groups 
of  'Seductive  Angels'  meet  him  in  the 
other;  the  one  says,  'No  peace  to  the 
wicked,  said  the  Lord,'  the  other  says, 

*  In  another  chapter  we  will  treat  on  the  angelology 
of  the  Hebrews,  where  this  Suriel,  who,  like  Meta- 
thron,  is  an  archangel  Q'jrj-j  ^jy.  wi!l  find  his  place. 


100 


ORIGIN  OK 


'  Thou  shalt  rest  with  grief,'  and  the  third 
says,  4  Go  down  and  lay  with  the  wicked 
ones." 

These  "Angels  of  Seduction,"  personifi- 
cations of  crime  and  remorse,  appear  in 
the  role  of  Satan's  actual  servant,  and 
partake  fully  of  his  nature,  as  decribed  in 
Christian  sources.  While  the  Mazikin  stand 
under  a  milder  prince,  viz.:  Ashmedai,  of 
whom  the  Talmud  says  that  he  is  not  him- 
self wicked,  the  "Angels  of  Seduction" 
stand  under  Satan  himself. 

The  JRuah  Tumcah,  "  the  unclean  spirit," 
was  contracted  on  burial  grounds  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  prophecy.  The  prohibition 
in  the  Law  of  Moses  against  inquiring  of 
the  dead,  against  which  also  the  prophet 
Isaiah  remonstrates  with  his  cotemporaries, 
is  expounded  in  the  Talmud  thus:  "This 
is  one  who  fasts  and  then  stays  all  night 
on  a  burial  ground,  that  he  be  possessed  of 
an  unclean  spirit,"  (Sauhedrin  64) — a 
practice  which  appears  to  have  been  very 
common  in  those  clays.  At  another  place 
(Niddah  16)  this  practice  is  enumerated 
among  others  which  endanger  a  man's  life 
"  and  bring  his  blood  upon  his  own  head." 
Plato,  both  in  his  Phaedon  and  the  work 
On  Law,  speaks  of  the  returning  souls  of 
the  deceased.f  In  the  former  work  he  says 
the  soul  after  the  separation  from  its  body 
is  attracted  to  the  upper  world  by  a  certain 
force  of  attraction  inherent  in  the  body, 

I  See  Phaed..  eait.  Leipzig,  1825,  p.  81  C— E.  and  p. 
iO»  the  notes;  OB  Law.  p.  833, 


CHRISTIANITY.  101 

Ac.  These  souls  soar  about  their  graven 
and  monuments,  and  are  visible,  because 
they  are  not  yet  entirely  separated  from 
all  bodily  matter.  These  are  not  the  souls 
of  good  men  ;  it  is  a  punishment  for  their 
wicked  life.  Therefore  they  resume  the 
wicked  practices  of  their  former  days.  Then 
he  states  that  the  soul  of  murdered  persons 
haunt  in  Hades  the  souls  of  their  murderers. 
Here  then  are  the  impure  spirits  on  burial 
grounds  as  a  superstition  which  must  have 
been  common  among  the  Greeks  long  before 
Plato,  because  he  attempts  to  assign  a 
natural  reason  to  it.  In  the  Talmud  one 
rabbi  states  :  "During 'the  twelve  months 
after  death,  the  soul  rises  and  returns  (to 
the  grave) ;  after  twelve  months  it  rises  to 
return  no  more."  This  has  been  adopted 
by  theologians  of  the  middle  ages,  with 
the  theory  of  Plato,  viz,:  the  soul  feels  a 
desire  after  the  bodily  organs  and  corporeal 
pleasures  and  enjoyments.  A  soul,  there- 
fore, altogether  given  to  carnal  pleasures 
must  be  attracted  so  much  longer  by  its 
body. 

From  another  story,  however,  recorded 
in  the  Talmud  (Berachoth  18  a  and  Aboth 
Derabbi  Nathan,  Sec.  3)  it  appears,  the 
superstition  was  prevalent  that  the  dead 
hold  conversations,  which,  at  certain  times 
and  to  certain  persons,  are  audible.  The 
story  there  is  of  a  pious  man,  who  having 
given  alms  to  a  poor  stranger,  was  up- 
braided by  his  wife  so  badly  that  he  loft  ttio 
hou.se  and  remained  all  night  on  the  burial 


1Q'2  ORIGIN  OF 

ground.  Ho  heard  two  dead  children  con- 
verse, heiiee  no  wicked  persons.  One  of  the 
children  had  been  above  in  heaven,  heard 
from  behind  the  curtain  what  God  said  re- 
garding the  future,  and  on  returning  com- 
municated it  to  the  other  child.  This  was 
done  twice  on  the  eve  of  New  Year;  but 
the  third  time  the  conversing  children  had 
found  out  that  somebody  listened,  and  they 
communicated  no  more  secrets. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  this  supersti- 
tion changed  its  form  at  various  times ;  but 
under  all  forms  it  was  believed  that  one 
was  thus  enabled  to  prophesy.  We  shall 
see  in  another  chapter  how,  by  fasting  and 
similar  means,  not  only  an  evil  spirit  was 
contracted,  but  also  a  pure  spirit  for  the 
same  and  similar  mystic  purposes. 

The  Ruah  Baah,  "  evil  spirit,"  is  a  demon 
which,  finds  pleasure  in  taking  possession 
of  human  beings  (according  to  the  New 
Testament,  also  of  swines)  and  in  causing 
them  to  do  wicked  or  mischievous  things  con- 
trary to  their  will.  A  clear  definition  of 
the  nature  of  this  class  of  demons  is  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  JPirke  Rabbi  Elieser, 
the  first  chapters  of  which  are  much  older 
than  the  Talmud,  and  their  author  was  a 
cotemporary  of  the  apostles.  It  says  there  : 
"A  man  who  has  an  evil  spirit,  whatever 
he  does,  he  does  not  from  his  own  choice, 
but  by  compulsion  of  the  evil  spirit;  and 
whateyer  words  he  speakc  are  the  words  of 
the  evil  one."  The  evil  spirit  silences  a 
man's  sou),  R appends  his  will,  bis  moral 


CHRISTIANITY.  103 

and  mental  volition,  and  exposes  him  en- 
tirely to  the  will  of  the  demon  ;  so  the  belief 
was. 

We  must  add  here  a  remarkable  passage 
of  the  Talmud  (Erubin  41,)  "  Three  things 
cause  man  to  violate  his  own  will  and  the 
will  of  his  Maker,  viz.:  idolatry,  AN  EVIL 
SPIRIT,  and  extreme  poverty.  To  what 
purpose  is  this  told?  that  one  should  pray 
for  him." 

The  Talmud  narrates  several  such  cases. 
We  quote  one :  Rabbi  Simon,  the  son  of 
Yochai,  and  Rabbi  Elieser,  son  of  Rabbi 
Jose,  were  sent  to  Rome  to  petition  the  em- 
peror for  the  revocation  of  an  edict  which 
prohibited  the  observation  of  the  Laws  of 
Moses,  (probably  under  the  Emperor 
Hadrian.)  When  they  were  uader  waj', 
"  Ben  Talmion  ('  son  of  a  wretch,')  met  them 
and  said,  if  you  wish  I  will  go  with  you. 
Rabbi  Simon  wept.  He  said,  three  times 
the  angel  appeared  to  the  handmaid  in  nay 
father's  house  (Hagar,)  and  to  me  not  once. 
Let  the  miracle  come  from  any  place.  Then 
the  demon  Ben  Talmion  hastened  before 
them  to  Rome  and  took  possession  of  the 
emperor's  daughter.  When  they  arrived, 
the  Rabbi  commanded  the  demon,  leave! 
and  he  left."  This,  of  course,  moved  the 
emperor  to  revoke  his  edict. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  have  to  deal 
chiefly  with  the  two  latter  classes  of  de- 
mons— the  unclean  spirit  and  the  evil  spirit. 
The  demoniacs  of  the  New  Testament  are 
not  simply  persons  who  labored  under 


! 


104  ORIGIN  ov 

phases  of  insanity,  or  suffered  from  some 
hallucination.  Matthew  states  distinctly  : 
"  Even  those  who  were  possessed  with  de- 
mons, and  those  who  were  lunatics,  and 
those  who  had  the  palsy."  Here  a  distinct 
line  is  drawn  between  the  demoniac  and 
the  madman. 

An  English  physician,  partly  from  per- 
sonal observations  and  partly  from  facts 
otherwise  known  to  him,  set  down  the  fol- 
lowing points  of  difference  between  the  de- 
moniac and  the  madman.* 

1.  A  madman  never  acknowledges  him- 
self to  be  insane ;  the  supposed  demoniac, 
on  the  contrary,  while  firmly  insisting  that 
he  is  in  his  right  senses,  fully  believes  him- 
self to  have  been  compelled  to  the  com- 
mission of  his  crime  by  some  power  he  was 
unable  to  withstand. 

2.  The  demoniac  seems  to  possess  almost 
a  supernatural  strength  for  the  time  being. 

3.  The  demoniac,  although  perfectly  well 
aware  of  the  crime  he  is  about  to  commit 
and  the  consequences  which  may  attend  it, 
has  neither  pleasure  nor  satisfaction  in  its 
perpetration,  and   the  victim   is  generally 
one  who  gave  him  no  cause  of  offence  what- 
ever. 

4.  At   the  commencement   of  the  attack 
religious  suasion   appears   to    exercise   an 
immense  curative  power  on  the  demoniac  ; 
but  that  power  diminishes  in  strength  the 
longer  recourse  to  it  is  delayed,  till  its  effi- 
cacy is  utterly  lost. 

Wftr-1»,  London,  1807,  pp.  !'<».  *c. 


CHKISTIANITY.  105 

That  writer  thinks,  "  It  is  a  state  unaf- 
fected, so  far  as  science  can  prove  by  any 
physical  condition  of  the  body,  on  which 
medicine  appears  to  have  no  effect,  and  on 
which  religion  alone  seems  to  exercise  any 
beneficial  control."  Still  ne  admits  that 
the  disease  is  contracted  by  the  excessive 
use  of  spirituous  liquors,  as  also  by  medical 
treatment  under  the  strong  stimulating 
system  carried  to  excess  in  cases  of  typhoid 
fever. 

The  reader  will  observe  that  this  descrip- 
tion of  the  demoniac  coincides  precisely 
with  the  rabbinical  notices  of  this  disease 
as  well  as  with  those  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  a  warm  climate  which  relaxes  the 
nervous  system,  in  an  age  and  at  places 
where,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  artificial 
means  were  frequently  used,  to  overstrain 
the  nerves  to  their  utmost  powers,  in  order 
to  see  mystic  visions  and  receive  supernat- 
ural oracles,  this  unexplained  disease  may 
have  been  quite  frequent,  and  may,  in 
many  instances,  have  been  cured  by  re- 
ligious suasion  or  other  moral  influences. 
Not  knowing  the  nature  and  causes  of  the 
disease,  it  was  ascribed  to  the  villany  of  a 
demon. 

This  brings  us  down  to  Exorcism  and 
Thaumaturgy.  We  must,  however,  make 
mention  of  a  'Similar  disease  among  the 
Greeks  before  we  enter  upon  the  next  topic 
The  fate  of  the  Arcadian  King  Lykaon 
whom  Zeus  changed  into  an  ugly  wolf,  is 
well  known.  This,  in  after  times,  gave  rise 
8 


106  ORIGIN  OF 

to  a  demoniac  disease  called  Lykanthropia 
or  Kynanthropia,  on  which  the  Greek  physi- 
cian Marcellus  of'Sidae  (under  the  Emperor 
Mark  Aurel,)  treated  at  some  length.|  He 
shows  that  the  patients  suffering  of  this 
species  of  madness,  especially  at  the  ap- 
proach of  spring  in  the  month  of  February, 
attempted  to  imitate  the  manners  and  pas- 
sions of  animals,  especially  of  dogs  and 
wolves,  and  spent  their  nights  on  solitary 
burial  places. 

The  rabbis  of  the  Talmud  describe  as  one 
criterion  of  insanity,  "  To  stay  over  night 
on  a  burial  ground." 

Magic  and  incantations  as  practiced  by 
the  ancient  Greeks  was  introduced  among 
them,  as  their  accounts  maintain,  by 
Oethanes  who  came  into  Greece  from  Persia 
with  Xerxes,  and  promulgated  the  rudi- 
ments of  those  secret  arts.  They  were  af- 
terward enlarged  by  Democritus,  who,  it 
was  maintained  by  the  ancient  Greeks,  had 
learned  them  out  of  the  writings  of  certain 
Phoenicians.  The  whole  mystic  art  came 
from  sources,  thus  much  is  certain,  to  which 
the  ancient  Hebrews  had  access  long  before 
the  Greeks.  Therefore  it  would  be  won- 
derful, almost  miraculous,  if  the  Hebrews 
had  not  learned  some  of  these  superstitious 
practices,  especially  as  they  profess  to  have 
learned  "  the  names  of  the  angels "  in 
Babylonia.  The  fact  that  they  knew  the 
Ahriman,  son  of  Lilith,  as  one  of  the  prom- 


t  Thorlacius,  Opuscula  T.  IV,  p.  54,  &c. 


CHRISTIANITY.  107 

merit  demons,  points  distinctly  enough  to 
Persia.  It  appears  even  that  the  A  shmedai , 
the  prince  of  demons,  was  identical  with 
Ahriman,  and  the  word  being  composed  of 
tfK  JSsh,  "fire,"  and  HID  madoi,  "median." 
It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  only  differ- 
ence between  the  two  Persian  deities  Or- 
muzd  and  Ahriman  is  light  and  fire.  Or- 
muzd  is  "the  light  of  intelligence,"  and 
Ahriman  is  "the  fire  of  man." 

Still  those  superstitions  never  assumed 
the  stupendous  dimensions  among  the  He- 
brews as  they  did  among  the  Pagans,  and 
especially  among  the  Greeks,*  with  whom 
superstition  outdid  itself.  However,  as  we 
have  seen  already,  exorcism  and  thau- 
maturgy  were  practiced,  or  at  least  it  is 
maintained  in  the  Talmud  that  certain  per- 
sons were  experts  in  these  secret  arts..  Not 
only  the  Talmud,  also  Josephus  chronicled 
this  superstition. 

Speaking  of  King  Solomon  (Antiquit.  B. 
VIII,  Chap,  ii,  g5)  Josephus  states: 

"Now  the  sagacity  and  wisdom  which 
God  had  bestowed  on  Solomon  was  so  great 
that  he  exceeded  the  ancients,  inso- 
much that  he  was  no  way  inferior  to  the 
Egyptians,  who  are  said  to  have  been  be- 
yond all  men  in  understanding ;  nay,  in- 
deed, it  is  evident  that  their  sagacity  was 
very  much  inferior  to  that  of  the  king's. 
He  also  excelled  and  distinguished  himself 
in  wisdom  above  those  who  were  most  emi- 
nent among  the  Hebrews  at  that  time  for 
shrewdness  ;  those  I  mean  were  Ethan,  and 
Heman,  and  Chalcol,  and  Darda,  the  sons 

*  See  Antiquities  of  Greece  by  John  Porter,  DD. , 
Book  II,  chap,  xviii. 

8* 


108  ORIGIN  OF 

of  Mahol.  He  also  composed  books  of 
odes,  and  songs,  a  thousand  and  five,  of 
parables  and  similitudes,  three  thousand  ; 
for  he  spake  a  parable  upon  every  sort  of 
tree,  from  the  hyssop  to  the  cedar;  and  in 
like  manner  also  about  beasts,  about  all 
sorts  of  living  creatures,  whether  upon  the 
earth,  or  in  the  seas,  or  in  the  air ;  for  he  was 
not  unacquainted  with  any  of  their  natures, 
nor  omitted  inquiries  about  them,  but  de- 
scribed them  all  like  a  philosopher,  and  de- 
monstrated his  exquisite  knowledge  of  their 
several  properties.  God  also  enabled  him 
to  learn  that  skill  which  expels  demons,f 
which  is  a  science  useful  and  sanative  to 
him.  He  composed  such  incantations  also 
by  which  distempers  are  alleviated.  And 
he  left  behind  him  the  manner  of  using  exor- 
cisms, by  which  they  drive  away  demons, 
so  that  they  never  return ;  and  this  method 
of  cure  is  of  great  ibrce  unto  this  day :  for 
1  have  seen  a  certain  man  of  my  own  coun- 
try, whose  name  was  Eleazer,  releasing 
people  that  were  demoniacal,  in  the  presence 
of  Vespasian,  and  his  sons,  and  his  captains, 
and  the  whole  multitude  of  his  soldiers. 
The  manner  of  the  cure  was  this :  he  put  a 
ring  that  had  a  root  of  one  of  those  sorts 
mentioned  by  Solomon  to  the  nostrils  of  the 
demoniac,  after  which  he  drew  out  the  de- 
mon through  , his  nostrils;  and  when  the 

t  Some  pretended  fragments  of  these  books  of 
conjuration  of  Solomon  are  still  extant  in  Fabricius' 
Cod.  Pseudepigr.  Vet.  Test.  p.  1054,  though  I  entirely 
differ  from  Josephus  in  this  his  supposal,  that  such 
books  and  arts  of  Solomon  were  parts  of  that  wisdom 
which  was  imparted  to  him  by  God  in  his  younger 
days ;  they  rnuet  rather  have  belonged  to  such  pro- 
fane but  curious  arts  as  we  find  mentioned,  Acts,  xix, 
13—20,  and  have  been  derived  from  idolatry  and  super- 
stition of  his  heathen  wives  and  concubiues  in  his  old 
age,  when  he  had  forsaken  God,  and  God  had  forsaken 
him,  and  given  him  up  to  demoniacal  delusions.  Nor 
does  Josephus'  strange  account  for  the  root  Baara, 
(Of  the  War,  B.  VIII,  ch.  vi,  sec.  3,)  seem  to  be  other 
than  thai  of  it*magical  use  in  such  conjurations.  As 
for  the  following  history,  it  contains  what  Christ 
saye  Matt,  xii,  27,  "  If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils, 
by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out?  "—  W Mston. 


I 


CHRISTIANITY.  109 

ina,n  fell  down  immediately,  he  adjured  bin: 
to  return  unto  him  no  more,  making  still 
mention  of  Solomon,  and  reciting  the  in- 
cantations which  he  composed.  A  nd  when 
Eleazer  would  persuade  and  demonstrate 
to  the  spectators  that  he  had  such  a  power, 
he  set  a  little  way  oif  a  cup  or  basin  full  of 
water,  and  commanded  the  demon,  as  he 
went  out  of  the  man,  to  overturn  it,  and 
thereby  to  let  the  spectators  know  that  he 
had  left  the  man ;  and  when  this  was  done, 
the  skill  and  wisdom  of  Solomon  was 
showed  very  manifestly ;  for  which  reason 
it  is  that  all  men  may  know  the  vastness  of 
Solomon's  abilities,  and  how  he  was  beloved 
of  God,  and  that  the  extraordinary  virtues 
of  every  kind  with  which  this  king  was  en- 
dowed may  not  be  unknown  to  any  people 
under  the  sun ;  for  this  reason,  I  say,  it  is 
that  we  have  proceeded  to  speak  so  largely 
of  these  matters." 

" The  cup  and  basin  full  of  water"  which 
the  demon  overturned,  to  let  the  spectators 
know  that  he  had  left  the  man,  is  mentioned 
also  in  the  Talmud  on  the  occasion  narrated 
above,  when  Rabbi  Simon,  son  of  Yochai, 
drove  out  the  demon  "  Ben  Thalmion " 
from  the  daughter  of  the  emperor.  Rashi 
to  this  passage  (Meilah  17)  quotes  another 
version  of  a  part  of  that  story,  according  to 
which  the  demon  Ben  Thalmion  says  in  ad- 
vance to  the  rabbi,  "  And  this  shall  be  your 
sign  that  I  went  out,  in  coming  forth  I  will 
break  all  the  glass  vessels  in  the  house  of 
the  prince." 

Again  in  another  place  (Wars,  Book  VII, 
chap,  vi,  $3)  Josephus  narrates  this  : 

"  Now  within  this  place  (Macherus)  there 
grew  a  sort  of  rue,*  that  deserves  our  won- 

*  Spanheim  observes  here,  that  in  Grj-ecia  Major 
and  Sicily  they  had  rue  prodigiously1  great  and  dur- 
able lilie  this  rue  at  Macherus. 


.110  ORIGIN  OF 

der  on  account  of  its  largeness ;  for  it  is  no 
way  inferior  to  any  fig-tree  whatsoever, 
either  in  height  or  thickness  ;  and  the  report 
is,  that  it  had  lasted  ever  since  the  times  of 
Herod,  and  would  probably  have  lasted 
much  longer,  had  it  not  been  cut  down  by 
those  Jews  who  took  possession  of  the  place 
afterward.  But  still  in  that  valley  which 
encompasses  the  city  on  the  north  side, 
there  is  a  certain. place  called  Baaras,  which 
produces  a  rootf  of  the  same  name  with  it- 
self; its  color  is  like  to  that  of  flame,  and 
toward  the  evening  it  sends  out  a  certain  ray 
like  lightning  ;  it  is  not  easily  taken  by  such 
as  would  do  it,  but  recedes  from  their  hands, 
nor  will  yield  itself  to  be  taken  quietly,  un- 
til either  the  urine  of  a  woman  or  her  men- 
strual blood  be  poured  upon  it ;  nay,  even 
then  it  is  certain  death  to  those  that  touch 
it,  unless  any  one  take  and  hang  the  root 
itself  down  from  his  hand,  and  so  carry  it 
away.  It  may  also  be  taken  another  way 
without  danger,  which  is  this.  They  dig  a 
trench  quite  round  about  it,  till  the  hidden 
part  of  the  root  be  very  small,  they  then  tie 
a  dog  to  it ;  and  Avhen  the  dog  tries  hard  to 
follow  him  that  tied  him,  this  root  is  easily 
plucked  up ;  but  the  dog  dies  immediately, 
as  if  it  were  instead  of  the  man  that  would 
take  the  plant  away ;  nor  after  this  need  any 
one  be  afraid  of  taking  it  into  their  hands. 
Yet  after  all  this  pains  in  getting,  it  is  only 
valuable  on  account  of  one  virtue  it  hath, 
that  if  it  be  only  brought  to  the  sick  per- 
sons, it  quickly  drives  away  those  called 
demons,  which  are  no  other  than  the  spirits 

t  This  strange  account  of  the  place  and  root  Baaras 
seems  to  have  been  taken  from  the  magicians,  and 
the  root  to  have  been  made  use  of  in  the  days  of  Jo- 
sephus  in  that  superstitious  way  of  casting  out  de- 
mons, supposed  by  him  to  have  been  derived  from 
King  Solomon,  of  which  we  have  already  seen  he  had 
a  great  opinion  ;  Antiq.  B.  VIII,  chap,  ii,  sec.  5.  We 
also  may  hence  learn  the  true  notion  Josephushad 
of  demons  and  demoniacs,  exactly  like  that  of  the 
Jews  and  Christians  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
first  four  centuries.  See  Antiq.  B.  VI,  chap,  viii,  sec. 
2;  B.  XI,  chap,  ii,  sec.  3.—  Whiston 


CHRISTIANITY.  Ill 

of  the  wicked  that  enter  into  men  that  are 
alive,  and  kill  them,  unless  they  can  obtain 
some  help  against  them." 

Fabricius,  in  his  Codex  Pseudepigr.  Vetr. 
Test.,  p.  1054,  preserves  some  pretended 
fragments  of  these  books  of  conjuration  of 
Solomon,  which  may  be  a  translation  from 
a  book  known  to  the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud, 
as  the  illNIDin  13D  Stfer  Harefuoth,  "the 
book  on  therapeutics,"  which  King  Heze- 
kiah  is  reported  to  have  hid,  for  which  he  re- 
ceived divine  approbation.  (Pesachim  56  and 
elsewhere.)  Most  likely  some  pseudograph 
wrote  a  volume  on  this  subject  and  passed 
it  for  the  work  of  King  Solomon  which 
King  Hezekiah  had  hid,  together  with  the 
copper  serpent  which  Moses  had  made  in 
the  wilderness.  The  compilers  of  the  Tal- 
mud gave  Credence  to  the  story  as  they  did 
to  the  stories  of  the  Phoanix  and  the  Sala- 
manders (Cholin  127.) 

It  is,  therefore,  beyond  doubt  that  exor- 
cism was  practiced  among  the  Hebrews  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles ;  that  it  had  a  his- 
tory, and  popular  credulity  dated  its  origin 
back  to  King  Solomon,  of  whom  the  Talmud 
ulso  narrates  the  beautiful  fable  of  his  ad- 
ventures with  Ashmedai,  whom  he  ban- 
ished in  order  .to  tell  him  where  the  worm 
Shemir  could  be  found.  This  worm  which 
grows  in  the  ashes  of  the  Phcenix,  cuts  stone 
by  mere  touch.  Solomon  was  obliged  to 
have  this  worm  to  cut  stones  for  the  altar  of 
the  temple,  to  which  purpose  no  iron  instru- 
ments were  to  be  used.  Ashmedai  alone 


112  ORIGIN  OF 

knowing  where  to  find  it,  after  the  use  of 
much  strategy,  he  was  brought  before  Solo- 
mon and  informed  him  where  to  find  the 
Shemir.  Afterward,  however,  Ashmedai 
retaliated  on  Solomon  4  "We  call  attention 
to  this  story  only  in  support  of  the  fact  that 
the  origin  of  exorcism  was  supposed  to  be 
of  Solomon,  who  not  only  had  Shiddah  and 
Shiddoth,  but  "was  wiser  than  all  men;" 
"and  he  spake  three  thousand  proverbs, 
and  his  songs  were  a  thousand  and  five. 
And  he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  tree 
that  is  in  Lebanon,  even  unto  the  hyssop 
that  springeth  out  of  the  wall  ;  he  spake  also 
of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and  of  creeping 
things,  and  of  fishes  ;  "  consequently  he 
could  also  govern  the  demons  and  teach 
others  how  to  do  it.  The  demons  dreaded 
his  very  name  as  late,  indeed,  as  in  the  days 
of  Vespasian  and  Josephus. 

The  Hebrews  certainly  did  not  consider  this 
mystic  art  a  gift  of  grace,  because  Solomon 
did  not  enjoy  the  reputation  either  of  a 
prophet  or  of  a  very  pious  man.  Although 
the  Talmud  maintains  in  one  place,  "  Who- 
ever says  Solomon  sinned  is  in  error  ;  "  still 
it  is  well  maintained  on  the  other  hand  that 
he  wras  one  "  who  teaches  wisely  and  acts 
otherwise."  The  root  of  the  plant,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  had  more  to  do  with  this 
mystic  art  than  the  magic  spells  uttered  on 
the  occasion.  It  would  appear  even  that 
those  magic  practicians  actually  knew  of 


t  This  story  is  beautifully  explained  in 
Millin  by  S.  J.  L,.  Ilapoport,  part  1  ,  art.  Ashmedai, 


CHRISTIANITY.  113 

medicine  to  cure  the  disease  called  demoniac. 
The  rabbis,  as  we  have  seen  already,  had  no 
need  of  any  medicine ;  Rabbi  Simon,  son  of 
Jochai,  plainly  commanded  the  demon  Ben 
Thalmion  to  leave,  and  it  left.  Mar,  son  of 
Rabbi  Ashi,  summoned  the  demon  before 
his  court  and  imposed  a  fine  on  the  wretch, 
which  it  had  to  pay.  They  considered  ex- 
orcism a  science  which  one  could  and  should 
study.  We  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter 
that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  re- 
quired to  know  this  mystic  science.  The 
Talmud  (Succah  28  a)  tells  that  Hillel  had 
eighty  pupils,  among  whom  Rabbi  Johanan, 
son  of  Saccai,  was  the  youngest,  yet  he 
knew  all  and  every  thing  that  the  age  pos- 
sessed. Among  the  sciences  of  this  rabbi 
there  is  specially  enumerated  "  conversation 
with  the  angels  and  conversation  with  the 
demons,"  It  was  considered  a  profane 
science  which  was  prohibited  on  Sabbath. 
So  the  Talmud  informs  us,  (Sanhedrin  101  a) 
"  None  should  inquire  011  Sabbath  in  mat- 
ters of  the  demons."  One  Rabbi  Jose  has 
sense  enough  to  add  thereto,  "  Also  on  week 
days  it  is  prohibited."  There  are  recorded 
in  the  Talmud  some  magic  spells  to  banish 
demons  (Pesachini  105  to  110)  and  a  secret 
art  to  enable  one  to  see  them  (Berachoth 
6  a) ;  but  they  are  of  a  much  later  origin 
than  the  period  on  which  we  treat. 

Again,  in  the  Talmud  Sandhedrin  (begin- 
ning of  chapter  eleventh,)  where  those  are 
counted  who  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  in  eternal  life,  Rabbi  Akiba  adds, 


114  ORIGIN  OF 

"Who  read  profane  books  and  who  whis- 
pers over  a  wound,  '  All  the  sickness  which 
I  brought  on  the  Egyptians,  I  shall  not 
bring  on  thee,  for  I,  the  Lord,  am  thy  phy- 
sician.' "  This  entitles  us  to  believe 
that  class  of  incantations,  healing  wounds 
by  magic  spells,  was  a  common  superstition 
which  that  rabbi  opposed.  The  Talmud 
narrates  several  times  that  the  apostles  and 
disciples  of  Jesus  practiced  this  supersti- 
tion. "  The  grandson  of  Rabbi  Joshua  ben 
Levi  was  sick  with  an  inflammation  of  the 
throat,  and  a  person  came,  ^whispered  into 
his  ear  the  names  used  among  Nazarenes, 
and  he  recovered."  (Talm.  Yerushalmi  Eru- 
bin.)  At  another  place  (Abodah  Zarah 
85  a)  another  note  of  this  kind  occurs :  A 
nephew  of  Rabbi  Ishmael  ben  Elisha  was 
sick,  and  the  apostle  James  carne  to  heal 
him  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  the  rabbi 
would  not  allow  it.  Whether  Rabbi  Akiba 
opposed  this  practice  simply  because  it  was 
a  superstition,  or  he  did  so  because  it  was  a 
Christian  superstition,  it  is  now  difficult  to 
decide.  The  former  is  most  likely,  because 
the  magic  spell  was  a  verse  from  the  Old 
Testament. 

We  need  go  no  further  on  this  topic.  The 
above  quotations  must  have  already  con- 
vinced the  reader  that  the  knowledge  of 
demonology,  as  well  as  exorcism  and  thau- 
inaturgy,  was,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  a 
vulgar  belief  and  a  secret  science,  of  which 
some  made  use  and  others  did  not.  Some 
considered  the  whole  pretentious  supersti- 


CHRISTIANITY.  115 

tious  and  others  did  not.  Some  employed 
this  mystic  art  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
ception and  imposition,  while  some  may 
have  made  it  subservient  to  other  and  better 
purposes.  But  it  was  not  a  gift  of  grace  any 
more  with  the  Eleazer  of  Josephus,  Rabbi 
Simon  and  others  in  the  Talmud  than  with 
the  apostles  and  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  vice 
versa.  On  the  part  of  the  Jewish  writers  it 
is  not  even  claimed  as  a  gift  of  grace. 

In  regard  to  miracles,  however,  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Talmud  run  fully  as  high 
and  higher  than  those  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. All  kinds  of  miracles,  except  the 
reanimatioii  of  the  dead,  a  miracle  which 
the  author  of  kings  only  had  the  boldness 
to  claim  for  the  two  prophets  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  but  all  other  miracles  recorded  by 
the  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
some  considerably  more  stupendous  are 
recorded  also  in  the  Talmud,  as  having  been 
wrought  by  men  who  were  cotempora- 
ries  of  the  apostles,  and  by  their  sires.  Some 
characters  of  the  Talmud  are  specially 
noted  as  workers  of  miracles  and  are  called 
on  this  account  D-OJ  3  IDI^D  "experienced  in 
miracles,"  as  Rabbi  Simon  ben  Yochai, 
mentioned  before,  Nalmm  of  Giriisu  (Taa- 
nith  21)  and  many  others.  By  the  way 
(and  also  in  Vajikrali  Rabbah)  the  Talmud 
narrates  the  following  marvelous  anecdote 
of  this  Nahum  :  His  people  wished  to  send 
a  present  to  the  emperor,  and  they  ap- 
pointed him  to  be  the  messenger.  They 
gave  him  a  box  filled  with  gems  and  pearls. 


116  ORIGIN  OF 

On  his  way,  stopping  all  night  in  an  inn, 
thieves  emptied  the  box  of  its  valuable  con- 
tents and  filled  it  with  earth.  The  poor 
man  discovered  his  bad  luck,  but  having  no 
means  to  replace  the  stolen  treasures,  he; 
as  he  was  used  to,  exclaimed,  "  Also  this  is 
for  good,"  and  continued  his  journey.  He 
reached  his  place  of  destiny  and  delivered 
the  box  with  earth  to  the  emperor.  On  ex- 
amining its  contents,  the  emperor  and  his 
officers,  of  course,  were  much  offended,  and 
Nahum  and  his  party  were  in  danger  for 
their  lives.  But  the  prophet  Elijah  assumed 
the  appearance  of  one  of  the  Imperial  offi- 
cers and  pleaded  the  unlucky  man's  cause. 
"  Perhaps  this  is  of  Abraham's  earth  which 
possesses  the  charming  power  to  render  an 
enemy's  sword  like  stubble  and  ashes,"  the 
disguised  Elijah  advanced.  The  earth  was 
tried  and  it  actually  possessed  this  precious 
virtue.  This  rendered  it  more  valuable  than 
any  treasures  which  could  be  offered  to  the 
ruler,  and  Xahum  was  greatly  honored  by 
the  emperor  and  sent  home  with  rich  pres- 
ents. That  the  prophet  Elijah  came  down 
from  heaven  and  conversed  with  this  or  that 
person,  or  wrought  miracles  for  somebody, 
was  almost  an  cveryday's  occurrence. 

The  oldest  man  of  miracles  recorded  in 
the  Talmud  was  the  Rip  van  TTinkle  of  the 
Jews,  the  man  who  slept  seventy  years. 
His  name  was  Honi  HamangeL  He  lived 
in  time  of  Alexander  Jannseus  and  his  wife 
and  successor  in  office,  Alexandra,  between 


CHRISTIANITY.  117 

105  and  75  B.  C.*  This  man  of  wonders,  we 
are  told  in  the  Talmud  (Taanith  23,)  was  so 
familiar  with  the  Almighty  himself  that  he 
asked  favors  of  God  like  an  uncouthed  son, 
whose  will  the  good  father  does  after  all. 
His  prayers  were  instantly  granted.  The 
month  of  Adar  had  passed,  the  Talmud  nar- 
rates, and  no  rain  had  refreshed  the  parch- 
ing land.  They  sent  to  Honi  Hamangel 
and  requested  him  to  pray  for  rain.  He  did 
so  and  it  rained  not.  He  dug  a  hole,  went 
down  and  prayed,  "O  Lord  of  the  world! 
thy  children  have  set  their  countenance  on 
me,  as  if  I  was  the  son  of  the  house  before 
thee  ;  I  swear  by  thy  great  name  that  I  will 
not  move  from  this  spot  until  thou  hast 
shown  mercy  to  thy  children."  It  began 
raining  slowly.  His  pupils  said,  it  appears 
to  rain  only  for  the  purpose  of  absolving 
him  of  his  oath,  so  that  he  might  go  home. 
Honi  continued  his  prayer,  "  This  is  riot  the 
rain  for  which  I  prayed,  I  asked  for  a  rain 
which  fills  wells  and  cisterns,"  and  lo !  a 
heavy  current  of  rain  poured  down  with 
violence.  It  appears  the  rain  has  come  to 
destroy  the  world,  his  pupils  said  much 
alarmed ;  ho  prayed  again,  and  it  rained 
quietly.  It  rained  so  much  that  Jerusalem 
was  overflowed  to  such  an  extent  that  peo- 
ple fled  upon  the  Mount  of  the  Temple,  and 
again  Honi  prayed  and  the  rain  stopped. 
This  is  a  miracle  as  great  as  any  told  in  the 
New  Testament. 


*  He  was  a  cotemporary  of  Simoon  ben  Shatach  who 
could  hardly  have  lived  longer  than  75  B.  C. 


118  ORIGIN  OP 

The  close  connections  of  this  man  with 
God  were  not  limited  to  him  only ;  two  of 
his  grandsons,  Aba  Hilkiah,  his  son's  son, 
and  Hanan  or  Onias  "  who  hid  himself,"  his 
daughter's  son,  did  precisely  the  same  things 
at  various  times,  as  the  Talmud  narrates  in 
the  same  place.  This  Hanan  or  Onias  "  who 
hid  himself"  came  to  a  tragic  end.  When 
Aretas  and  Hyrcanus  besieged  Aristobulus 
in  Jerusalem,  Josephus  tells  us  (Antiqu. 
Book  XIV,  chap,  ii,  §1,)  "  Now  there  was 
one  whose  name  was  Onias,  a  righteous 
man  he  was,  and  beloved  of  God,  who,  in  a 
certain  drought,  had  prayed  to  God  to  put 
an  end  to  the  intense  heat,  and  whose  pray- 
ers God  had  heard,  and  had  sent  them 
rain.  This  man  had  hid  himself,  because 
he  saw  that  this  seduction  would  last  a  great 
while.f  However  they  brought  him  to  the 
Jewish  camp,  and  desired  that  as  by  his 
prayers  he  had  once  put  an  end  to  the 
drought,  so  he  would  in  like  manner  make 
imprecations  on  Aristobulus  and  those  of 
his  faction.  And  when  upon  his  refusal,  and 
the  excuses  that  he  made,  he  was  still  by  the 
multitude  compelled  to  speak,  he  stood  up 
in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  "  O  God,  the 
King  of  the  whole  world !  since  those  who 
stand  now  with  me  are  thy  people,  and 
those  that  are  besieged  are  also  thy  priests, 
I  beseech  thee  that  thou  wilt  neither  hearken 
to  the  prayers  of  those  against  these,  nor 
bring  to  effect  what  these  pray  against 

t  The  Talmud  gives  another  reason  for  the  surname 
"who  had  hid  himself,"  both,  however,  may  be  cor- 
rect. 


CHRISTIANITY.  119 

those."  Whereupon  such  wicked  Jews  as 
stood  about  him,  as  soon  as  he  had  made 
this  prayer,  stoned  him  to  death."  Thus 
the  rabbinical  tale  of  a  man  working  won- 
ders by  prayer  is  corroborated  by  Josephus, 
while  none  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament  can  boast  upon  such  im- 
portant testimony. 

This  Honi  Hamangel  and  his  two  grand- 
sons were  not  the  only  men  who  wrought 
wonders  by  prayer;  the  Talmud  narrates 
most  astonishing  miracles  which  were  per- 
formed especially  by  Rabbi  Hanina  ben  Do- 
sa,  Rabbi  Phineas  ben  Yai'r,  (the  miracu- 
lous powers  of  these  men  extended  to  their 
asses  on  which  they  rode,)  Rabbi  Judah  ben 
Elai,  Rabbi  Judah  ben  Baba,J  Rabbi  Elieser 
ben  Hyrcan,  and  numerous  others.  We 
must  quote  some  of  the  most  remarkable 
ones.  Nakdimon  ben  Gurion,  a  rich  citizen 
of  Jerusalem,  borrowed  of  a  Roman  officer 
the  water  contained  in  twelve  cisterns,  when 
water  was  scarce  in  that  city,  to  supply  the 
pilgrims.  He  promised  twelve  talents  of 
silver  to  the  Roman,  if  on  a  certain  day  the 
rain  should  not  refill  his  cisterns.  This  was 
then  quite  a  large  sum  of  money.  The  last 
day  of  the  contract  had  approached,  and  no 
rain  had  fallen.  The  Roman  sent  word  to 
Nakdimon  to  send  him  the  water  or  the 
money  ;  but  Nakdimon  replied,  the  day  has 
yet  many  an  hour.  The  Roman  laughed  at 
this  and  said,  the  whole  year  no  rain  fell,  it 

t  See  Seder  Haddaroth,  edit.  Karlsruh,  1754.  p.  106  a, 
column  1. 


120  ORIGIN  OF 

will  certainly  not  come  to-day.  He  went 
to  the  bath  full  of  joy,  and  Nakdimon  went 
into  the  temple  and  prayed,  "  O  Lord  of  the 
world,  thou  knowest  that  I  have  not  done 
this  for  my  honor  or  the  honor  of  my 
father's  house,  I  have  done  it  to  thy  glory 
that  the  pilgrims  have  water  to  drink."  In- 
stantly the  clouds  rose  and  the  rain  de- 
scended so  copiously  that  all  cisterns  over- 
flowed. The  Roman  going  out  of  his  bath- 
house and  Nakdimon  coming  from  the 
temple  met ;  the  latter  said,  pay  me  for  the 
surplus  of  water  thou  hast  received,  to 
which  the  Roman  replied,  "  I  know  that  thy 
God  shakes  the  world  on  thy  account ;  still 
I  have  another  plea  against  thee,  for  behold 
the  sun  is  set,  the  day  is  past,thou  must  pay." 
Nakdimon  returned  to  the  temple  and 
prayed,  "  Lord  of  the  world,  make  known 
that  thou  hast  beloved  ones  in  thy  world  ; 
as  thou  hast  done  me  a  wonder  in  the  begin- 
ning, do  me  one  more  at  the  end."  The 
wind  turned,  the  clouds  dispersed,  and  the 
sun  came  forth  brightly  from  behind  the 
clouds.il 

Rabbi  Hanina  ben  Dosa  was  another  man 
of  great  miracles.  Being  on  the  road  he 
was  overtaken  by  a  heavy  shower.  He 
prayed, <%  O  Lord  of  the  worlds,  everybody 
is  pleased,  must  Haiihia  be  distressed !  " 
It  stopped  raining.  Having  reached  his 
house  he  prayed  again, "  Lord  of  the  worlds, 
everybody  is  distressed  and  Hanina  should 
be  pleased !  "  Instantly  it  rained  again. 

J  Taanitli  19  aud  Aboth  Derabbi  Nathan. 


CHRISTIANITY.  121 

The  Bath  Kol  "daily"  proclaimed  in  the 
name  of  God,  "  The  whole  world  is  given 
sustenance  for  the  sake  of  HANINA,  MY  SON, 
and  Hanina,  my  son,  lives  on  a  measure  of 
turnips  from  one  Sabbath  to  another." 
(Berachoth  17,  Chulin  86  and  in  Taanith.) 
This  same  Rabbi  Hanina  ben  Dosa  per- 
formed a  miracle  similar  to  the  one  which 
Paul  did  with  a  serpent,  only  that  the  rabbi 
did  it  still  more  wonderfully.  "  There  was 
near  a  certain  village  a  venomous  serpent, 
called  Gnarud,  which  poisoned  many  people. 
They  went  to  Rabbi  Hanina  ben  Dosa  arid 
complained.  Show  me  the  hole  of  the  ser- 
pent, he  said,  and  they  did  so.  He  placed 
his  heel  in  the  hole,  the  serpent  bit  him; 
but  it  was  the  serpent  which  died.  Hanina 
took  the  dead  creature  upon  his  shoulder, 
went  to  the  academy  and  declared,  the  ser- 
pent kills  not,  the  sins  do.  Then  they  said, 
wo  to  the  man  who  meets  a  Gncurudj  and 
wo  to  the  Gnarud  which  meets  Rabbi 
Hanina  ben  Dosa."  (Berachoth  33.)  Fur- 
ther on  (p.  44)  it  is  stated  of  the  same  man 
that  he  not  only  cured  the  sick  by  his 
prayers;  but  he  even  knew  while  praying, 
whether  God  would  heal  the  sick  man  for 
whom  he  prayed.  So  he  prayed  once  for 
the  sick  son  of  Rabbi  Gamliel,  and  right 
after  prayer  he  said  to  the  messenger  that 
the  patient  was  well  already.  In  the  same 
manner  he  saved  the  son  of  Rabbi  Johanan 
ben  Saccai,  whose  wife  was  much  surprised 
that  her  husband  should  not  be  able  to  do 
what  Hanina  could  do ;  but  the  rabbi  said, 
9 


122  ORIGIN  OF 

"  He  (Hanina)  is  like  a  servant  before  the 
king  (having  free  ingress)  and  I  am  like  an 
officer  before  the  king."  This  Hanina,  as 
is  evident  from  his  connections  with  the 
rabbis  Gainliel  and  Johanan  ben  Saccai, 
was  a  cotemporary  of  the  apostles. 

Another  most  extraordinary  man  was 
Rabbi  Phineas  ben  Yair  who  nourished  a 
century  later  than  Hanina.  This  man  di- 
vided the  water  of  a  river  by  his  plain  com- 
mand. The  story  is  told  in  the  Talmud 
(Chulin  7  a)  thus:  "Rabbi  Phineas  ben 
Yair  went  out  to  release  captives.  His  pro- 
gress was  arrested  by  a  river  called  Quinai. 
Divide  thy  waters,  Guinai,  said  the  rabbi, 
and  let  me  pass  on.  The  river  replied,  thou 
goest  to  do  the  will  of  thy  Maker,  and  I  go 
to  do  the  will  of  my  Maker ;  it  is  doubtful 
whether  thou  wilt  do  it,  and  it  is  certain 
that  I  will  do  it.  If  thou  dividest  not  thy 
waters,  the  rabbi  continued,  I  will  punish 
thee  that  never  water  shall  flow  again  in 
thy  bed.  The  river  obeyed,  the  water  was 
divided,  and  the  rabbi  passed  through." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  our  purpose  to  men- 
tion any  of  the  minor  miracles  whose  num- 
ber in  the  Talmud  is  legion,§  when  we  can 

?  Some  of  the  minor  miracles  are  those  told  by 
Rabbi  Elieser  on  his  death  bed  in  the  presence  ofAkiba 
who  was  the  witness  of  the  miracles  told,  viz :  Elieser 
commanded,  and  a  whole  field  was  suddenly  filled 
with  pumpkins;  he  commanded  again,  and  all  the 
pumpkins  were  gathered  together  to  one  heap.  (San- 
hedrin  68.]  Another  story  (Sabbath  129  6)  was  thus : 
"  One  king  of  Syria  (Antiochus  Epiphanes?)  issued  a 
decree,  whoever  will  put  philaetres  upon  his  head, 
that  head  shall  be  fractured.  Elishah,  a  pious  man, 
minded  not  that  law,  he  placed  the  philactres  on 
his  forehead  and  going  into  the  street  met  a  Syrian 
officer;  Elishah  ran,  the  officer  overtook  him,  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  123 

point  to  the  following  allegations  which 
throw  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament 
altogether  in  the  shade. 

Rabbi  Ishmael  ben  Elisha  held  conversa- 
tion with  the  angels,  and  on  several  occa- 
sions he  communicates  freely  what  the  an- 
gels told  him.  In  one  instance  (Berachoth 
51)  he  narrates  what  the  archangel  SURIEL 
told  him.  This  rabbi,  we  are  told,' was  in 
heaven,  and  four  others,  viz :  Akiba,  Ben 
Soma,  Ben  Asai  and  Acher  were  in  Para- 
dise. How  intimately  acquainted  the  rab- 
bis were  with  the  angels- is  best  illustrated 
in  a  story  told  in  the  Talmud  (Hagiga  14)  : 
"  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Saccai  rode  upon  an 
ass  out  of  Jerusalem,  and  one  of  his  pupils, 
Rabbi  Elieser  ben  Aroch,  followed  him  to 
learn  something  of  him.  He  said,  Rabbi, 
repeat  to  me  a  section  on  the  throne  of  God 
('  Maaseh  Merkabeh;')  but  the  rabbi  re- 
plied, my  son,  have  I  not  taught  you  not  to 
speak  thereof,  except  to  one  alone,  if  he  is 
wise  and  gifted  with  self-reflection?  The 
pupil  then  replied,  well  then  permit  me  to 
recite  before  thee  what  I  have  learned. 
Rabbi  Johanan  gave  him  permission,  came 
down  from  the  ass,  wrapped  his  whole  form 

Elishah  hid  the  philactres  in  his  closed  fist.  What 
hast  them  in  thy  hand  ?  the  officer  asked.  The  wings 
of  a  dove,  Elishah  answered  He  opened  his  hand, 
and  behold  instead  of  philactres  there  were  the 
wings  of  a  dove."  So  his  life  was  saved.  Joseph 
ben  Simai  was  an  officer  of  the  crown.  Another 
story  is  told  (,Sabbath  121):  "Once  fire  broke  out  in 
his  house  on  Sabbath,  the  Pagans  came  to  put  it 
out,  but  he  would  not  allow  a  violafon  of  the  Sab- 
bath to  save  his  property.  A  miracle  happened,  in- 
stantly a  heavy  rain  fell  and  quenched  the  fire." 
Dozens  of  such  stories  could  be  compiled  from  the 
rabbinical  literature. 

9* 


124  ORIGIN  OP 

in  the  wide  cloak,  and  seated  himself  upon 
a  stone  under  an  olive  tree.  The  pupil 
asked,  Rabbi,  why  hast  thou  left  the  ass  ? 
The  rabbi  said,  if  thou  speakest  of  the 
throne  of  God,  the  Shechinah  will  be  with 
us,  and  the  ministering  angels  will  accom- 
pany us,  and  I  should  ride  upon  an  ass? 
Rabbi  Elieser  then  began  to  speak  of  the 
throne  of  God,  fire  came  down  from  heaven 
and  enwrapped  all  the  trees  of  the  field,  the 
trees  sung  hymns,  and  an  angel  exclaimed 
out  of  the  fire,  truly  this  is  the  description 
of  God's  throne. ' '  When  Rabbi  Joshua  and 
Rabbi  Jose  heard  this,  they  also  spoke  of 
the  same  subject.  "  That  day  was  in  high 
summer,  still  heaven  covered  itself  with 
clouds,  a  rainbow  appeared  in  them,  and 
the  ministering  angels  assembled  and  came 
to  listen,  as  men  will  at  the  plays  before  a 
bridal  pair." 

All  these  men  were  cotemporaries  of  the 
the  apostles.  We  shall  attempt  in  another 
chapter  to  find  a  key  to  these  extravagant 
mysteries ;  here,  however,  they  will  suffice, 
as  they  are,  to  show  that  miracles  and  con- 
versation with  angels  was  nothing  uncom- 
mon in  those  days.  Not  only  the  aii- 
gels,  even  the  evil  one  was  under  the  control 
of  the  rabbis.  King  David  already,  the 
Talmud  informs  us,  had  the  advantage  over 
"the  angel  of  death,"  so  that  he  could  lay 
hold  on  him  by  strategy  only  (Sabbath  30;) 
but  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Levi  and  Rabbi 
Hanina  bar  Papa  retaliated  on  the  evil  one, 
deprived  him  of  the  sword  of  death  by 


CHRISTIANITY.       .  125 

strategy,  and  went  alive  into  Paradise 
(Kethuboth  77  and  else.where.)  "  The  angel 
of  death  "  is  Satan  himself,  taking  death  as 
the  greatest  physical  evil.  This  Rabbi 
Joshua  ben  Levi  communicates  in  another 
place  of  the  Talmud  (Berachoth  51)  part  of 
the  secrets  which  "  the  angel  of  death  "  told 


The  Talmud  not  only  claims  for  the 
various  rabbis  full  power  over  Satan  and 
the  hosts  of  demons  (once  they  even  caught 
Satan  and  laid  him  in  chains  as  Solomon 
did  with  Ashmedai)  and  full  knowledge  of 
the  heavenly  hosts,  the  power  of  restoring 
the  sick  by  prayer,  and  -of  governing  the 
laws  of  nature  ;  it  claims  still  more  for 
them.  They  were  in  possession  of  "the 
laws  of  creation,"  Hilchoth  Yetsirah,  and 
the  secrets  thereof,  so  that  the  man  of  mar- 
vels mentioned  above,  Rabbi  Hanina  ben 
Dosa,  and  his  colleague,  Rabbi  Oushia, 
actually  created,  say  created  a  calf,  which, 
when  it  was  three  days  old,  they  killed  and 
ate.  (Sanhedrin  67.) 

It  is  certainly  superfluous  to  multiply  in- 
stances, the  above  are  sufficient  to  give  the 
reader  a  proper  insight  into  the  spirit 
and  allegations  of  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles. The  above  stories  were  not  writ- 
ten down  immediately  when  it  was  sup- 
posed they  transpired;  the  Gospel  mir- 
acles also  were  written  long  post  festum, 

t  There  existed  a  book  "  Pinkeseh  "  of  Babbi 
Joshua  ben  Levi  which  was  lost  This  may  have 
contained  the  mystic  tales,  some  of  which  were 
quoted  in  the  Talmud  (Sabbath  155  6.) 


126  ORIGIN  OF 

both,  however,  point  to  the  same  chapter  of 

history. 

Any  intelligent  reader,  on  discovering  all 
these  superstitions  in  the  Talmud,  will  at 
once  come  to  the  conclusion  that  both  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  com- 
pilers of  the  Talmud  committed  one  and 
the  same  error,  viz :  they  accepted  and  pre- 
sented those  aberrations  of  the  human 
mind  as  matters  of  fact.  It  is  certainly  not 
necessary  to  prove  that  the  whole  demon- 
ology,  together  with  the  mystic  arts  and 
miraculous  performances  connected  there- 
with, are  the  inventions  of  superstitious 
persons;  modern  science  and  philosophy, 
and  the  current  conceptions  of  religion,  re- 
ject those  superstitions  as  unfounded  and 
ridiculous,  as  fantastic  products  of  a  child- 
ish imagination.  Therefore  the  Christian 
argument,  that  one  party  wrought  these 
miracles  by  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  and  the  other 
by  "  Satan,"  falls  of  itself  to  the  ground. 
As  we  do  not  admit  the  existence  of  demons, 
we  can  not  believe  the  miracles  performed  on 
them.  Neither  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  nor 
the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Elieser  of 
Josephus,  could  have  banished  demons. 
Still,  if  one  should  be  credulous  enough  to 
believe  in  the  existence  of  demons,  he  must 
admit  at  once  that  those  rabbis  and  that 
Elieser  possessed  the  same  gifts  of  grace  as 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  did,  and  it  would  not 
prove  any  thing  in  favor  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  could  not  be  claimed  also  in 
favor  of  the  Talmud.  If  these  things  prove 


CHRISTIANITY.  127 

the  divinity  of  the  New  Testament,  they 
prove  also  the  divinity  of  the  Talmud.  The 
believer  in  demons  must  accept  both  collec- 
tions as  divine,  which  neither  Christian  nor 
Jew  might  be  willing  to  admit. 

It  is  perfectly  useless  to  maintain,  as  the 
rationalists  do,  that  the  stories  of  demons 
and  exorcism  must  be  taken  in  a  figurative 
sense  only ;  rational  talmudists  advanced 
the  same  theory  in  regard  to  the  Talmud, 
because  both  classes  of  authors  are  per- 
fectly in  earnest  about  this  matter,  and  be- 
tray not  with  one  word  that  they  meant 
any  thing  except  literally  that  which  they 
have  written. 

Did  the  rabbis  imitate  the  apostles  or  vice 
versa  ?  The  passages  quoted  from  Josephus 
are  decisive  in  one  respect,  viz :  that  these 
superstitions  existed  among  the  Jews  long 
before  the  rabbis  and  the  apostles,  hence  in 
the  main  there  was  no  necessity  for  imita- 
tion on  either  side.  The  popular  supersti- 
tions existed  and  were  adopted.  It  is  easy 
to  imagine  why  they  were  adopted.  The 
vulgar  and  illiterate  mass  is  by  far  more 
disposed  to  bestow  attention  on  ocular  de- 
monstration, however  unskillful  a  manipu- 
lation, and  be  impressed  with  a  supersti- 
tion, however  manifest  an  absurdity,  than 
to  reason  and  to  grasp  the  products  of  rea- 
son. To  establish  one's  authority  over  such 
a  mass,  one  need  only  condescend  to  their 
superstitions  and  prove  his  controling  power 
over  things  which  they  fear,  and  his  good 
grace  and  favor  with  such  other  things  of 


128  OBIGIN  OF 

which  they  expect  favors.  Little  ingenuity 
suffices  to  prove  things  which  are  believed 
in  advance,  and  the  smallest  demonstra- 
tions of  miraculous  powers  are  exaggerated 
to  enormity  by  credulous  admirers.  The 
apostles  and  the  rabbis  established  their 
authority  over  vulgar  and  illiterate  masses 
precisely  by  the  same  method;  they  con- 
descended to  the  popular  superstitions  con- 
nected with  the  demons  and  demonstrated 
their  marvelous  powers  over  the  dreaded 
creatures.  A  little  knowledge  of  the  laws 
of  nature  unknown  to  others,  in  connection 
with  some  ingenuity,  are  sufficient  to  do 
wonders.  On  the  other  hand  they  main- 
tained to  stand  in  particular  grace  and 
good  favor  with  God  and  His  angels,  proved 
this  by  healing  the  sick  as  the  Esseneans 
and  Therapeuts  of  those  days  did  by  mar- 
vels, and  produced  rain  in  due  season, 
which  would  have  come  without  their  inter- 
ference, re-animated  the  dead  if  they  were 
in  a  swooning  state,  and  practiced  such 
other  necessary  arts  to  establish  their 
authority  over  others.  Some  of  the 
rabbis  and  the  apostles  may  have  believed 
in  those  things,  as  some  of  the  greatest 
scholars  of  all  ages  had  their  peculiar  su- 
perstitions ;  while  others  found  it  necessary 
to  practice  those  impositions  to  the  very 
best  of  purposes,  viz :  to  gain  the  confidence 
of  the  lower  masses,  in  order  to  instruct 
them  in  those  lessons  of  truth  which  the 
apostles  and  the  rabbis,  each  his  own 
theories  of  course,  considered  indispensably 


CHRISTIANITY.  129 

necessary  to  the  salvation  and  happiness 
of  man.  Most  all  demagogues  and  impos- 
tors of  our  own  days,  as  well  as  most  of  the 
popular  teachers  with  the  best  of  intentions 
practice  this  self-same  system  of  accommo- 
dation to  popular  prejudices  and  supersti- 
tions, and  man  was  always  about  the  same 
creature,  with  the  same  merits  and  demerits. 
We  are  selfish  enough  to  smile  at  the  im- 
perfections of  past  ages,  and  would  not  ad- 
mit how  coming  generations  will  laugh  at 
our  follies. 

Therefore  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  both 
the  apostles  and  the  rabbis  practiced  those 
impositions.  The  apostles  were  obliged  to 
do  so,  because  the  rabbis  did.  Having 
adopted  the  Bath  Kol  and  the  glossology 
and  maintaining  to  stand  in  every  point  as 
high  and  higher  than  their  opponents,  the 
apostles  were  bound  to  work  miracles  and 
banish  demons,  or  else  they  could  not  have 
established  a  reputation  among  the  lower 
class  of  people,  the  Am  Haarez,  whom  they 
especially  sought  to  convert.  Elieser  could 
drive  out  a  demon  in  the  name  of  Solomon, 
and  Peter  could  not  do  it  in  the  name  of 
Jesus — this  one  thing  would  have  been 
enough  to  ruin  the  reputation  of  Peter  and 
his  master.  Besides,  there  was  a  belief  cur- 
rent that  whenever  the  Messiah  shall  come, 
all  the  demons,  together  with  their  prince, 
should  be  overcome  ;  Satan  himself  should 
be  changed  into  a  good  angel.  So  moral 
perfection  was  symbolized.  Many  passages 
of  the  Gospels  point  directly  to  this  popular 


130  ORIGIN  OP 

belief.  The  Messiah  having  come,  the  de- 
mons, were  obliged  to  submit  to  those  who 
possessed  the  gift  of  grace  and  were  the 
messengers  of  the  son  of  David;  so  the 
apostles  were  obliged  to  practice  exorcism. 

This,  however,  proves  not  that  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  or  the  various  rabbis  performed 
the  fetes  described  in  the  New  Testament 
and  the  Talmud ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  much 
more  likely  that  neither  of  them  would 
write  down  a  memorial  of  events,  calcu- 
lated to  rouse  suspicion  against  them  with 
the  intelligent  and  learned  portion  of  the 
community.  They  may  have  claimed,  in 
general  terms,  such  powers  and  supernat- 
ural gifts;  posterity  invented  events,  par- 
ticular cases,  especially  when  philosophy 
and  learning  declined,  and  it  declined 
rapidly  in  the  second  century  already— in 
illustration  of  those  marvelous  powers. 
The  authors  and  transcribers  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  well  as  the  compilers  of  the 
Talmud,  received  those  stories  as  facts  and 
incorporated  them  in  their  respective  works. 

These  and  similar  superstitions  were  by 
fa  more  popular  among  the  Gentiles  than 
among  the  Jews.  The  Jews  dispersed  among 
the  Gentiles  were  looked  upon,  as  a  general 
thing,  as  being  in  possession  of  those  secret 
arts  and  mystic  sciences.  In  Rome,  at  the 
very  seat  of  the  art  and  science  of  those 
days,  the  satyric  poet,  Juvenal,  informs  us 
the  Jews  were  looked  upon  as  the  best  in- 
terpreters of  dreams  and  the  most  expert 
soothsayers.  The  Roman  women  run  after 


CHRISTIANITY.  131 

Jewish  beggars  to  have  their  fortunes  told.* 

Throughout  the  middle  ages  the  Jews 
maintained  this  peculiar  reputation  among 
the  Gentiles,  and  in  some  parts  of  Europe 
superstitious  people  still  believe  in  it. 

When  Paul,  therefore,  visited  the  Gen- 
tiles, he  went  first  to  the  Jews.  He  found 
them  in  possession  of  this  reputation  among 
the  Gentiles.  This  was  too  advantageous 
a  point  to  be  neglected  by  a  man  of  Paul's 
prudence.  So  he  admitted  that  all  the 
Jews,  of  course  who  adopted  his  doctrines, 
possessed  the  various  gifts  of  grace,  to  speak 
with  tongues,  prophecy,  heal  diseases,  ex- 
pel demons  and  perform  other  miracles; 
and  only  added  to  this  that  all  who  believed 
should  receive  instantly  the  same  enviable 
gifts  of  grace  which  the  Jews  possessed.  If 
Mr.  Renaii  supposes  we  must  not  form  an 
opinion  of  "  the  means  of  conversion  "  by 
these  naive  errorsf*  and  he  thinks  this  pru- 
dent accommodation  to  current  supersti- 
tions was  not  converted  to  efficient  means 
of  conversion  ;  he  is  certainly  mistaken  in 
regard  to  Paul,  who  employed  these  as  well 
as  other  means  at  his  command  to  the  pro- 
pagation of  the  faith  which  he  preached, 
without  the  least  proof  on  record,  that  he 
believed  any  of  those  secret  arts  or  mystic 
sciences.  On  the  contrary,  when  these  su- 
perstitions assumed  alarming  dimensions, 
he  remonstrated,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 

*  Juvenal  S&tyra  vi,  verses  541  to  546.    Also  Demas- 
cius  Vie  d  Isidore  56. 
t  Kenan's  Apostles,  chap.  vi. 


132  ORIGIN  OF 

passages  from  his  epistles,  quoted  in  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter;  but  he  could 
no  longer  master  them.  "  In  the  third  cen- 
tury the  church  still  believed  herself  pos- 
sessed of  the  same  privileges,  and  claimed 
as  a  permanent  right  the  power  of  healing 
the  sick,  of  driving  out  devils,  and  of  pre- 
dicting the  future.:}: 

This  is  one  of  the  radical  errors  in  the 
origin  of  Christianity,  the  nugatory  effect 
of  which  is  not  entirely  obliterated  in  our 
days.  While  Moses  firmly  and  severely 
opposed  those  superstitions,  because  they 
are  absurd,  impious  and  perversive  to  the 
intellect,  the  founders  of  Christianity  em- 
braced and  propagated  them  to  the  detri- 
ment of  genuine  piety  and  the  degradation 
of  reason.  If  the  Talmud  is  objectionable 
on  account  of  these  superstitions,  the  New 
Testament  is  no  less  so.  This  was  an  un- 
pardonable crime  on  truth  and  on  the  un- 
derstanding, which  fell  destructively  upon 
uncountable  tens  of  thousands  who  were 
bewildered,  confused  and  degraded  by  those 
superstitions.  Had  the  founders  of  Chris- 
tianity, like  Moses,  refused  to  employ  those 
contemptible  means  for  the  propagation  of 
faith,  it  might  not  have  succeeded  as  fast  as 
it  did  among  the  Gentiles;  but  it  would 
have  saved  its  votaries  the  disgrace  of  be- 
lieving in  demons,  exorcism,  thaumaturgy 
and  other  degradations  of  reason.  We  can 
close  this  chapter  only  with  an  expression 

*  Irenseus  adv.  hoer.  ii,  xxxii.  4;V,  vi,  1,  Tertull. 
Apol.  23  to  43 ;  Ad  Scaputum  2 ;  JJe  Corona  11 ;  De  Spec- 
taculisZL;  De  Anima  57. 


CHRISTIANITY.  133 

of  deep  sorrow,  that  the  author  of  Chris- 
tianity as  well  as  the  compilers  of  the  Tal- 
mud are  guilty  of  having  lent  their  hands 
to  the  promulgation  of  superstition. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  PERSECUTION  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts"  narrates  three 
persecutions  of  the  apostles  with  Peter, 
besides  the  execution  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii) 
and  of  James  the  brother  of  John  (Ibid, 
xii).  In  the  first  persecution  Peter  and 
John  only  are  mentioned  (Ibid,  iv) ;  in  the 
second  persecution  all  the  apostles  are  in- 
cluded (Ibid,  v,  18);  and  in  the  third 
Peter  alone  is  mentioned  alter  James  was 
slain,  as  the  object  of  persecution  (Ibid, 
xii,  3). 

There  are  several  weighty  reasons  why 
the  accounts  of  those  persecutions  can  not 
be  accepted  as  facts :  In  the  first  place,  we 
know  already  that  the  author  of  "The 
Acts"  did  not  intend  to  write  authentic 
history.  The  early  Christians  attached  so 
little  importance  to  that  book,  that  Chrys- 
ostom,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifth  century,  began  his 
homily  on  the  Acts  with  the  words,  "  By 
many  this  book  is  not  at  all  known,  neither 
the  book  itself,  nor  who  wrote  and  put  it 
together  "  ;  and  said  in  the  same  homily, 
"To  many  this  book  (the  Acts)  is  unknown, 
by  others  it  is  despised,  because  it  is  clear 


134  ORIGIN  OF 

and  easy."  Most  likely,  however,  it  was 
unknown  because  considered  unimportant, 
and  it  was  despised  on  account  of  its  mani- 
fest inventions. 

The  second  reason  is,  the  narratives  of 
these  persecutions  contain  so  many  self- 
contradictory  elements  that  the  story  can 
not  well  be  accepted  as  true.  Let  us  first 
examine  the  narratives  as  they  lay  before 
us.  The  first  story  runs  thus :  After  Peter 
and  John  had  healed  the  lame  man  who 
was  forty  years  old  and  was  born  lame, 
Peter  gained  numerous  followers  for  the  re- 
ligion of  the  apostles,  so  that  their  number 
grew  to  five  thousand,  which  was  certainly 
not  the  case.  It  was  iiot^this,  however,  at 
which  the  authorities  took  offence ;  "  As 
they  (the  apostles)  spake  unto  the  people, 
the  priests,  and  the  captain  of  the  temple, 
AND  THE  SADDUCEES,  came  upon  them  ; 
being  grieved  that  they  taught  the  people, 
and  preached  through  Jesus,  the  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead ;  and  they  laid  hands 
on  them,  and  put  them  in  hold  unto  the 
next  day."  So  the  author  of  "  The  Acts" 
states  the  case  (iv,  i,  &c.)  without  bestow- 
ing the  least  consideration  on  the  impor- 
tant circumstance,  that  all  at  once  the  face 
of  the  story  is  changed.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Pharisees  were  the  enemies  of  Jesus 
and  his  disciples,  and  Jesus  is  their  un- 
compromising opponent ;  now,  on  a  sud- 
den, the  Pharisees  are  all  satisfied  and 
silent,  in  one  instance  they  even  protect 
Paul  against  the  Sadducee  authorities,  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  135 

the  Sadducees  pour  out  their  wrath  oil  the 
apostles.  •'  The  Pharisees  and  the  Scribes" 
appearquitein  a  different  light  in  the  Acts 
from  what  they  do  in  the  Gospels.  They 
are  no  longer  "the  hypocrites"  of  the  age  ; 
on  the  contrary,  one  of  the  best  sentences 
of  the  New  Testament  is  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Gamliel  the  Pharisee,  as  we  shall  see  be- 
low; a  sentence  which  even  Dr.  Adam 
Clark  calls  "  humane,  sensible,  candid,  and 
enlightened"  (Acts  v,  34).  This  change  of 
the  tenor  must  have  a  sufficient  cause. 
The  author  of  "  The  Acts"  says,  the  Saddu- 
cees were  grieved  because  the  apostles 
preached  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ; 
but  the  Pharisees  always  preached  this 
doctrine,  and  Jesus  did  the  same  without 
exciting  the  ire  of  the  Sadducees  who  must 
have  certainly  been  well  used,  to  hear  a 
doctrine  preached  which  was  the  popular 
belief  of  all  classes  of  Hebrews,  the  few 
Sadducees  excepted.  If  the  Sadducees  would 
have  arrested  all  those  who  preached  the 
doctrine  of  resurrection,  they  must  have 
laid  hands  on  three-fourths  of  all  the  Jew- 
ish doctors.  This  was  certainly  not  the 
cause  which  led  to  the  arrest  of  Peter  and 
John. 

The  friendship  of  the  Pharisees,  supposed 
by  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  points  dis- 
tinctly to  a  time  after  Paul's  conversion. 
Paul,  the  pupil  of  a  Pharisee,  Gamliel,  and 
a  Pharisee  himself,  remained  in  continuous 
conversation  with  the  most  prominent 
doctors  of  that  school,  as  we  shall  see  here- 


136  ORIGIN  OF 

after.  The  influence  of  Paul  upon  the 
primitive  Christians  changed  the  feelings 
of  their  writers  concerning  the  Pharisees. 
Besides,  the  apostle  James,  as  noticed 
above,  stood  in  friendly  relations  to  the 
Pharisee  doctors,  Rabbi  Ishmael  ben  Elisha 
and  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  LevL  The  on- 
slaughts made  against  the  Sadducees  rests 
upon  another  historical  ground.  Josephus 
narrates  the  following  story  : 

"  And  now  Csesar,  upon  hearing  of  the 
death  of  Festus,  sent  Albinus  into  Judea, 
as  procurator.  But  the  king  deprived  Jo- 
seph of  the  high  priesthood,  and  bestowed 
the  succession  to  that  dignity  on  the  son  of 
Ananus,  who  was  also  himself  called  An- 
anus.  Now  the  report  goes,  that  this  eld- 
est Ananus  proved  a  most  fortunate  man ; 
for  he  had  five  sons,  who  had  all  performed 
the  office  of  a  high  priest  to  God,  and  who 
had  himself  enjoyed  that  dignity  a  long 
time  formerly,  which  had  never  happened 
to  any  other  of  our  high  priests.  But  this 
younger  Ananus,  who,  as  we  have  told  you 
already,  took  the  high  priesthood,  was  a 
bold  man  in  his  temper,  and  very  insolent: 
he  was  also  of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees, 
who  are  very  rigid  in  judging  offenders 
above  all  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  as  we  have 
already  observed;  when  therefore  Ananus 
was  of  this  disposition,  he  thought  he  had 
now  a  proper  opportunity  [to  exercise  his 
authority.]  Festus  was  now  dead,  and 
Albinus  was  but  upon  the  road  ;  so  he 
assembled  the  sanhedrim  of  judges,  and 
brought  before  them  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
who  was  called  Christ,  whose  name  was 
James,  and  some  others  [or  some  of  his 
companions.]  And  when  he  had  formed 
an  accusation  against  them  as  breakers  of 
the  law,  he  delivered  them  to  be  stoned : 
but  as  for  those  who  seemed  the  most 


CHRISTIANITY.  137 

equitable  of  the  citizens,  and  such  as  were 
the  most  uneasy  at  the  breach  of  the  laws, 
they  disliked  what  was  done;  they  also 
sent  to  the  king  [Agrippa,]  desiring  him  to 
send  to  Ananus  that  he  should  act  so  no 
more,  for  that  what  he  had  already  done 
was  not  to  be  justified  ;  nay,  some  of  them 
went  also  to  meet  Albiuus,  as  he  was  upon 
his  journey  from  Alexandria,  and  informed 
him,  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  Ananus  to 
assemble  a  sanhedrim  without  his  consent. 
Whereupon  Albinus  complied  with  what 
they  said,  and  wrote  in  anger  to  Ananus, 
and  threatened  that  he  would  bring  him 
to  punishment  for  what  he  had  done ;  on 
which  account  king  Agrippa  took  the  high 
priesthood  from  him,  when  he  had  ruled 
but  three  months,  and  made  Jesus,  the  son 
of  Damneus,  high  priest.— (Josephus'  A  n- 
tiquities,  book  xx,  chap,  ix,  g  1.) 

This  paragraph  of  Josephus  is  very  im- 
portant to  our  purposes.  Although  the 
words  "who  was  called  Christ,"  or  Messiah, 
are  evidently  the  addition  of  a  Christian 
transcriber ;  still  the  facts  recorded  can  not 
be  doubted.  They  show  that  James  and 
other  Christians  were  slain  by  the  Saddu- 
cean  high  priest  Ananus.  This  was  62  A. 
C.  Still  it  is  evidently  this  fact  which 
guides  the  author  of  "The  Acts"  through- 
out the  book,  and  he  always  speaks  con- 
demnatory of  the  Sadducees  and  the  high 
priest  Ananus.  Facts,  dates,  and  persons, 
were  of  very  little  consideration  to  the  au- 
thor of  "  The  Acts,"  whose  objects  were 
doctrines,  conciliation  of  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians,  and  not  to  write  his- 
tory. This  is  especially  clear  in  the  piece 
before  us.  Here  "Annas  the  high  priest" 
10 


138  ORIGIN  OF 

is  named  as  the  judge  of  Peter  and  John. 
This  is  a  mistake.  The  first  high  priest, 
Annas  or  Ananus  the  son  of  Seth,  was  the 
fourth  in  office  before  Caiaphas,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  Gospels,  was  in  that  office 
when  Jesus  was  crucified,  up  to  the  year 
37  or  38  A .  C.,  when  he  was  deposed  by  Vi- 
tellius,  the  governor  of  Syria.  (Josep. 
Ant.  xviii,  iv,  2,  3).  The  author  of  *«  The 
Acts1'  could  not  have  thought  of  Ananias, 
the  son  of  Nebedus,  the  seventh  high 
priest  after  Caiaphas,  because  he  calls  him 
Annas  and  not  Ananias,  which  are  two 
entirely  different  names.  Besides,  he 
places  this  Ananias  in  the  time  of  Felix 
(which  is  also  a  mistake),  who  was  Gover- 
nor of  Judea  from  53  to  60  A.  C.,  and  the 
story  of  Peter  and  James  narrated  here,  is 
supposed  to  havevoccurred  soon  after  the 
crucifixion.  The  mistake  is  obvious,  and 
could  only  have  suggested  itself  to  that 
author  by  the  story  of  Ananus  and  James, 
as  narrated  in  Josephus. 

The  next  important  fact  in  the  above 
paragraph  by  Josephus  is,  that  the  He- 
brews "disliked  what  was  done,"  con- 
demned the  bloody  act  of  Ana»ns  before 
king  Agrippa,  and  complained  about  it  so 
seriously  before  the  Roman  dignitarian 
Albinus,  that  Ananus  was  deposed  from 
his  sacerdotal  office.  This  is  only  an  ad- 
ditional evidence  to  that  deducible  from 
many  passages  of  the  Talmud,  as  from  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  " 
concerning  the  Pharisees,  that  the  Jews, 


CHRISTIANITY.  139 

or  at  least  those  "  who  seemed  the  most 
equitable  of  the  citizens,  and  such  as  were 
the  most  uneasy  at  the  breach  of  the  laws," 
did  not  persecute  the  apostles  or  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  whose  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices differed  very  little  from  those  of  the 
other  Jews.  This  is  frequently  admitted 
in  "  The  Acts,"  when  its  author  says  of  the 
officers  laying  hands  on  the  apostles, 
"  They  feared  the  people,  lest  they  should 
have  been  stoned." 

These  considerations  lead  to  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  whole  story  of  the  arrest, 
trial,  and  dismissal  of  Peter  and  John  is 
fictitious,  produced  at  an  age  when  the  ac- 
tual lives  of  the  apostles  had  been  known 
no  longer.  The  author  of  "The  Acts," 
starting  from  the  premises  that  the  apos- 
tles, after  the  death  of  Jesus,  remained  in 
Jerusalem  and  continued  the  master's 
work,  invented  various  stories  to  corres- 
pond, in  spirit  at  least,  with  that  of  Ana- 
nias and  James,  and  placed  them  up  as 
high  and  as  near  to  the  death  of  Jesus  as 
he  possibly  could.  This  supposition  re- 
ceives additional  force  from  the  circum- 
stance that  each  of  these  persecutions  is 
connected  with  some  miracle.  The  one 
before  us  begins  with  the  marvelous  heal- 
ing of  the  lame  man,  and  this  point  is  rep- 
resented as  a  "notable  miracle"  known, 
not  only  to  the  Sanhedrin,  but  also  "mani- 
fest to  all  them  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem.." 
The  stories  may  have  been  invented, for  the 
additional  reason  of  narrating  a  miracle  to 
10* 


.140  ORIGIN  OP 

the  glorification  of  the  apostles  and  their 
cause.  This  may  have  been  intended  for 
the  special  purpose  of  converting  the  Jews, 
who  were  shown  that  their  own  ancestors, 
rulers  and  doctors  of  by-gone  days,  ac- 
credited the  miracles  of  the  apostles ;  es- 
pecially as  the  Pharisees  are  treated  in 
vhose^stories  with  so  much  regard  and  kind- 
ness, and  the  Jews,  after  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem, were  all  Pharisees.  Besides  all 
these  considerations  all  these  persecution 
stories  have  the  doctrinal  tendency  im- 
printed on  their  foreheads.  Peter,  address- 
ing the  priests  in  his  own  defence,  pronoun- 
ces these  doctrines : 

1.  He  heals  the  sick  by  the  name  of  Je- 
sus ;  hence,  by  pronouncing  his  name  over 
the  sick,  they  are  healed,  a  doctrine  preva- 
lent among  Christians   to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. 

2.  That  Jesus  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
and  the  apostles  bear  witness  in  this  mat- 
ter, a  doctrine  by  no  means  unanimously 
accepted  by  the  primitive  Christians,  still 
it  is  the  corner-stone  upon  which  Christi- 
anity was  reared.    It  is  the  main  business 
of  the  apostles  to  testify  to  this  matter. 

3.  That  salvation  is  in  Jesus  only,  a  doc- 
trine which  was  never  clearly  denned,  and 
strongly  reminds  one  of  days  when  many 
false  prophets  rose  and  false  gospels  were 
preached ;  still  the  words  are  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Peter. 

4.  It  is   the  Holy  Spirit  whicji  speaks 
through  the  apostles  and  not  human  wis- 


CHRISTIANITY.  141 

dom,  because  "they  were  unlearned  and 
ignorant  men,"  so  that  the  priests  marveled 
and  felt  convinced,  "that  they  had  been 
with  Jesus."  This  is  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  Christianity.  Reason  and  under- 
standing are  no  factors  in  religion  ;  inspi- 
ration and  faith  are  everything. 

So  the  author  of  "  The  Acts"  may  have 
invented  this  story  to  suit  all  these  pur- 
poses, and  especially  to  afford  Peter  a 
proper  opportunity  to  utter  these  doctrines 
and  obtain  for  them  the  sanction  of  the 
rock  of  the  church,  in  order  to  silence  all 
skeptics  within  the  pale  of  Christianity. 

Still,  it  is  possible,  and  highly  probable, 
that  these  doctrines  are  original  with 
Peter  and  the  apostles,  and  the  story  itself 
rests  upon  a  fact,  although  the  story  and 
the  utterance  of  these  doctrines  have  no 
necessary  connection.  The  law  interdicted 
the  practice  of  thaumaturgy.  The  apostles, 
according  to  Christian  and  Jewish  testi- 
mony, practiced  thaumaturgy.  In  the 
case  before  us  a  lame  man  is  healed  by 
Peter  and  John,  and  they  are  arrested  and 
put  on  trial  for  the  practice  of  thaumaturgy, 
so  that  they  are  asked  by  the  high  priest, 
"  By  what  power,  or  by  what  name,  have  ye 
done  this?"  to  which  Peter  replies  that 
this  was  done  "  by  the  name  of  Jesus." 
Before  the  court  of  priests  it  is  merely  a 
case  of  thaumaturgy,  a  superstitious  prac- 
tice common  then  among  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, and  therefore,  in  strict  compliance 
with  the  Jewish  law  pTHJD  5<Sx  j'BWj?  j'K 


142  ORIGIN  OF 

"  None  should  be  punished  before  he  was 
warned" — the  two  apostles  were  dismissed 
with  a  mere  warning.  The  author  of  "The 
Acts"  may  have  embellished  this  histori- 
cal nucleus  to  suit  his  purposes.  Unfortu- 
nately he  was  not  well  acquainted  with 
history  or  chronology,  and  translocated 
the  high  priest  Annas,  together  with  the 
hatred  of  the  Sadducees  against  the  Chris- 
tians, from  the  year  62  to  year  33  or  34 
A.  C. 

The  mildness  of  the  high  priest  and  his 
court  in  this  matter  is  quite  remarkable  ; 
they  merely  commanded  Peter  and  John 
"not  to  speak  at  all  nor  to  teach  in  the 
name  of  Jesus."  In  plain  words  this  is  a 
warning  not  to  practice  thaumaturgy  with 
the, name  of  Jesus,  which  the  apostles  did 
not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  healing,  but 
to  teach  the  name  of  Jesus  and  the  power 
thereof.  There  is  HO  trace  of  hatred  or  ill 
will  in  this  charge  :  therefore  it  is  quite 
unlikely  that  Peter  had  charged  upon  the 
priests  the  crime  of  having  crucified  Jesus, 
as  this  must  have. excited  the  indignation 
of  the  priests,  who /nwast  have  fen  own,  if 
such  an  event  transpired  at  all,  that  the 
Roman  soldiers  crucified  Jesus.  But  there 
is  no  trace  of  indignation.  The  words, 
"whom  ye  crucified,"  must  have  been 
added  by  .Luke;  because  Peter,  like  Mark 
(xv,  16,, &c.)  and  Matthew  (xxvii,.27,  &c.), 
;must  have  known,  or  at  least  maintained, 
that  the  Roman  soldiers,  and  not  live  Jews, 
mocked,  tormented,  and  crucified  J-esus. 


CHRISTIANITY.  143 

Luke  and  John,  as  they  frequently  did, 
discredited  the  statements  of  the  former 
evangelists,  and  place  the  Jews  in  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Roman  soldiers,  in  mocking 
and  crucifying  Jesus.  Therefore  Luke, 
and  not  Peter,  could  have  accused  the 
priests  in  the  words,  "whom  ye  crucified." 
We  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  show 
how  Luke,  like  John,  writing  for  Greeks 
and  Romans  and  not  for  Jews,  took  par- 
ticular pains  to  justify  the  Roman  and  con- 
demn the  Jew.  So  he  does  on  this  occas- 
ion, without  any  historical  ground  what- 
soever, that  the  apostles  ever  accused  the 
Jews  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus. 

We  had  occasion  before  this  to  notice 
that  Luke  felt  no  scruples  in  the  inven- 
tion of  speeches  for  his  heroes,  a  practice 
quite  common  with  ancient  writers— and 
so  he  does  on  this  occasion.  What  Peter 
actually  said  to  the  priests  in  his  own  de- 
fence, is  altogether  unknown.  We  know 
from  the  story  before  us,  what  Luke  said ; 
we  know  his  tendencies  as  well  as  his  er- 
rors and  mistakes. 

The  second  persecution  noticed  in  "  The 
Acts"  befalls  not  merely  two  apostles,  but 
all  of  them  (Acts  v,  17,  &c.).  The  affair  is 
narrated  thus  :  The  warning  of  the  eccle- 
siastical court  to  the  apostles,  not  to  prac- 
tice thaumaturgy  with  the  name  of  Jesus, 
and  not  to  use  these  fraudulent  means  to 
promulgate  their  doctrines — was  not  heed- 
ed ;  on  the  contrary,  the  apostles  continued 
to  employ  all  the  superstitious  means  then 


144  ORIGIN  OF 

in  vogue  among  the  vulgar,  especially  the 
healing  of  the  sick  by  pronouncing  magic 
spells  connected  with  the  name  of  Jesus,to 
effect  their  purpose,  to  establish  their  au- 
thority and  to  spread  their  doctrines. 
(Ibid,  iv,  23,  &c.;  v,  12  to  17).  The  exer- 
tions of  the  apostles  were  successful,  the 
author  of  "The  Acts"  informs  us.  "The 
people  magnified  them,  and  believers  were 
the  more  added  to  the  Lord."  The  con- 
gregation itself  did  not  increase  in  num- 
bers, "and  of  thf>  rest  (of  the  people)  durst 
no  man  join  himself  to  them,"  our  author 
states  ;  but  her  influence  upon  the  multi- 
tude grew  steadily,  as  this  was  and  still  is 
the  case  universally,  where  the  current 
superstitions,  prejudices  or  passions,  are 
sanctioned  and  appealed  to  by  men  of 
moral  weight  or  popular  eloquence.  The 
illiterate  masses  reason  feebly  and  feel 
keenly.  The  understanding  is  clogged  and 
the  passions,  being  under  no  restraint, 
control  the  will.  To  them,  ocular  demon- 
stration and  momentary  satisfaction  or 
surprise  is  everything,  and  the  uncontrolled 
fantasy  supplies  successes  and  miracles, 
where  there  is  actually  nothing  but  delu- 
sion. 

In  every  enlightened  community  the  law 
prohibits  the  practice  of  charlatanry  :  not 
only  because  the  practician  obtains  money 
or  confidence  under  false  pretences,  but 
also  because  it  is  injurious  to  the  public 
morals  and  detrimental  to  the  progress  of 
science  and  enlightenment.  If  the  apostles 


CHRISTIANITY.  145 

would  now  re-appear  in  Prussia,  or  in  Aus- 
tria, or  in  any  other  country  where  medi- 
cal police  regulations  are  enforced,  and  ne- 
cromancy is  considered  a  public  nuisance, 
and  those  very  apostles  would  play  again 
the  roles  of  mountebanks,  as  ascribed  to 
them  by  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  they 
would  surely  and  justly  be  arrested  and 
punished  to  the  very  extent  of  the  law. 
Precisely  the  same  thing  was  done  then  in 
Judea.  Not  only  the  biblical  laws  but  also 
the  laws  of  Rome  prohibited  those  prac- 
tices. Already  in  the  year  12  A.  C.,  Au- 
gustus and  Tiberius  published  the  imperial 
edict  against  diviners  and  astrologers. 
Therefore  it  appears  likely  that  the  second 
persecution  of  the  apostles  is  also  based 
upon  a  fact,  which  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts,"  or  some  transcriber  after  him,  em- 
bellished to  suit  the  taste  of  his  age. 

It  is  again  the  high  priest  and  the  Sad- 
ducees,  not  the  Pharisees  and  the  Scribes, 
who  are  "filled  with  indignation,"  and 
consequently  they  "  laid  their  hands  on 
the  apostles  and  put  them  in  the  common 
prison."  The  high  priest's  name  is  not  men- 
tioned on  this  occasion,  and  we  are  left  to 
conjecture  any  person  or  time  in  connec- 
tion with  this  event.  It  was  evidently 
Luke's  intention  to  make  the  reader  believe 
this  story  occurred  shortly  after  the  perse- 
cution of  Peter  and  John.  Unfortunately, 
however,  as  in  the  first  the  name  of  Ana- 
nias contradicts  the  chronology,  so  in  this 
case,  the  names  of  Theudas  (v,  36)  and  ot 


146  ORIGIN  OF 

Judas  of  Galilee  (v.  37)  point  to  a  later  date. 
For  Theudas,  who  maintained  to  be  a 
prophet  and  able  to  perform  miracles 
("  boasting  himself  to  be  somebody"),  was 
captured  and  beheaded  by  Roman  soldiers 
in  the  days  of  the  Governor  Fadus,  44  or  45 
A.  C.  (Josephus  Antiq.  xx,  v,  1).  Ortho- 
dox interpreters  admit  that  every  circum- 
stance, as  related  by  Josephus,  agrees  well 
enough  with  what  is  said  of  the  Theudas 
of  "  The  Acts,"  so  that  the  identity  of  the 
two  persons  is  well  established.  The  chro- 
nology, however,  is  in  their  way,  and  they 
adopt  one  Judas  for  this  Theudas,  viz : 
Judas,  the  son  of  the  robber  Hezekiah, 
(Ibid.  Wars  ii,  iv,  1,  and  elsewhere)  who 
was  one  of  the  royal  pretenders,  and  was 
killed  by  Varus.  (Tacitus,  History  v, 
ix).  In  the  first  place  there  is  no  valid  rea- 
son why  one  Jew  (Josephus)  should  have 
called  the  same  man  Judas,  whom  another 
Jew  (Gamliel)  called  Theudas,  especially 
as  he,  right  in  the  next  verse,  mentions  a 
Judas.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  not  likely 
that  Gamliel,  who  mentions  here  the  Theu- 
das, should  have  pointed  out  one  of  the 
numerous  prominent  rebels  from  the  time 
of  Archelaus,  and  omit  the  others  who 
were  even  more  prominent,  as  Simon,  the 
slave  of  Herod,  and  especially  Athronges, 
who  gave  most  trouble  to  the  Romans. 
(Jos.  Ant.  xvii,  x,  7).  Two  thousand  Jews 
were  then  crucified  by  command  of  Varus, 
and  from  all  of  them,  it  is  supposed,  Gam- 
liel picked  out  but  one  name,  which  he  did 


CHRISTIANITY.  147 

not  even  know  correctly.  In  the  third 
place,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  why 
we  must  adhere  to  the  chronology  of  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts,"  contrary  to  the 
Gospels,  whose  authors  (Luke  excepted) 
let  the  apostles  and  disciples  go  back  to 
Galilee  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  so 
that  nobody  can  tell  when  they  returned 
to  Jerusalem. 

If  that  Theudas  brings  this  persecution 
story  to  44  or  45  A.  C.,  the  next  verse  of 
"  The  Acts"  brings  us  down  to  a  date  still 
more  recent.  The  verse  reads,  "  A  nd  after 
this  man  (Theudas)  rose  up  Judas  of  Gali- 
lee in  the  days  of  the  taxing,"  <fec.  This 
Judas,  the  republican  zealot  who  main- 
tained that  it  was  base  and  sinful  to  obey 
a  heathen  governor,  lived  in  the  days  of 
Cyrennus  about  10  A.  C.,  about  35  years 
before  Theudas,  and  not  "after  this  man." 
It  will  not  help  the  matter  to  make  of 
Theudas  the  Judas  son  ot  Hezekiah,  for 
the  two  Judas'  were  cotemporaries.  It  ap- 
pears, even  from  a  careful  comparison  of 
passages  in  Josephus,  that  Judas  of  Gali- 
lee flourished  before  the  other  Judas. 
Here  is  evidently  a  mistake  in  "  The  Acts." 
It  appears,  however,  that  this  mistake  was 
not  originally  made  by  Luke;  it  is  the 
blunder  of  a  transcriber  whose  traces  we 
shall  notice  in  this  piece.  After  the  death 
of  Theudas,  when  Tiberius  Alexander  was 
governor  of  Judea,  46  and  47  A.  C.,  the 
sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  James  and  Simon, 
were  crucified  by  command  of  that  gover- 


148  ORIGIN  OF 

nor.  (Jos.  Ant.  xx,  v,  2).  Most  likely,  as 
the  mode  of  their  death  suggests,  they 
were  guilty  of  a  sedition.  This  came  to 
pass  shortly  after  the  death  of  Theudas. 
An  ignorant  transcriber  replaced  the  sons 
by  the  father  without  regard  to  either  chro- 
nology or  history. 

Having  thus  brought*  the  story  down  to 
the  year  46  or  47,  we  must  not  forget  that 
Gamliel  is  speaking  of  those  persons  and 
events  in  the  past  tense,  "  For  before  these 
days  rose  up  Theudas,"  he  says;  "After 
this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee,"  <fec., 
he  continues.  Taking  into  consideration, 
however,  that  according  to  the  Greek  or- 
iginal, verse  36  should  be  rendered  :  "For 
it  is  not  very  long  yet,"  <fcc.,  we  might 
safely  establish  the  date  of  this  story  to 
about  50  A.  C.,  about  15  to  17  years  after 
the  crucifixion. 

Having  fixed  the  cause  and  the  date  of 
this  persecution  story,  we  come  now  to  the 
subject  matter.  The  apostles  were  arrest- 
ed. "  But  the  angel  of  the  Lord  by  night 
opened  the  prison  doors  and.  brought  them 
forth."  This  requires  no  critical  investi- 
gation, as  in  our  days  no  sensible  man  be- 
lieves in  such  child-like  fantasies.  The 
angel  also  commanded  them  to  go  to  the 
temple  and  speak  "to  the  people  all  the 
words  of  this  life."  These  latter  words 
should  most  likely  read  "all  these  words  of 
life."  As  they  stand  now  they  make  no 
sense,  and  only  show  again  the  hand  of  an 
ignorant  transcriber.  Accordingly,  they 


CHRISTIANITY.  149 

went  early  in  the  morning  to  the  temple 
and  taught.  Meanwhile  the  high  priest 
convoked  the  council  "and  all  the  senate 
of  the  children  of  Israel,"  it  is  added.  The 
council  was  the  senate  and  vice  versa. 
Here  is  again  the  tautology  of  an  ignorant 
transcriber  who  evidently  thought  of  two 
different  bodies.  The  phraseology  is  also 
entirely  new,  and  is  taken  from  the  bible 
and  not  from  the  current  expression  of 
those  days.  The  apostles  were  sent  for, 
but  the  officers  finding  the  prison  empty, 
returned  and  told,  "the  prison  truly  found 
we  shut  with  all  safety,  and  the  keepers 
standing  without  before  the  doors ;  but 
when  we  had  opened  we  found  no  man 
within."  Who  reported  this  verse  verbally 
to  Luke  ?  Had  he  a  reporter  at  the  senate, 
or  was  this  report  entered  upon  the  jour- 
nal of  that  body,  for  Luke  to  copy  it  ?  It 
is  not  likely  that  either  was  the  case.  He 
invented  this  speech  as  he  did  all  the 
rest.  Meanwhile  somebody  brought  the 
information  that  the  apostles  preached  in 
the  temple.  Notwithstanding  the  miracle, 
the  captain  and  the  officers  arrested  them 
again  and  placed  them  before  the  council. 
To  what  purpose  then  was  all  the  trouble 
the  angel  had  taken  with  them  ? 

The  high  priest  began  the  examination 
of  the  prisoners  with  the  query,  why  they 
preached  their  doctrines  again,  after  they 
had  been  warned  not  to  do  so,  and  then  he 
accused  them  "you  intend  to  bring  this 
man's  blood  upon  us."  "This  man's 


150  ORIGIN  OF 

blood  "  being  a  literal  translation  of 
ty\xn  mix  otho  haish,  we  know  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  writer  thereof  must  have 
lived  long  after  the  time  described.  Be- 
sides we  can  not  see  how  the  high  priest 
could  have  accused  them  of  this,  as  they 
certainly  never  maintained  any  such  thing. 
But  the  supposed  reply  of  Peter  proves 
beyond  doubt,  that  all  these  words  are  the 
author's  invention.  Peter  said,  "We 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man." 
This  answers  the  question. '  But  as  to  the 
accusation,  he  continues,  "  The  God  of  our 
fathers  raised  up  Jesus,  whom  ye  slew  and 
hanged  on  a  tree."  Not  one  of  these  words 
is  true,  and  none  could  have  been  uttered 
by  either  Peter  or  Luke,  who  must  have 
known  the  difference  between  crucifixion 
and  this  Jewish  mode  of  execution.  Those 
who  were  stoned  to  death  were  then  hanged 
on  a  tree  (See  Mishna  Sanhedrin,  vi,  4) ; 
while  those  who  were  crucified  by  the  Ro- 
mans, as  Jesus  was,  were  nailed  alive  to 
the  cross,  on  which  they  lingered  some- 
times for  days  before  death  released  them.. 
The  latter  part  of  this  verse  (30)  is  undoubt- 
edly the  addition  of  the  same  ignorant 
transcriber  whose  hand  we  have  traced  be- 
fore— of  a  man  who  did  not  care  about 
such  nice  differences.  Then  Peter  contin- 
ues, "  Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right 
hand"  (not  "  to  sit  at  his  right  hand,"  as 
the  Gospels  have  it.)  "a  Prince  and  a  Sav- 
ior" (this  is  also  a  new  term)  ''for  to  give 
repentence  to  Israel"  (also  a  bran  new 


CHRISTIANITY.  151 

expression)  "and  forgiveness  of  sins.  And 
we  are  his  witnesses  of  these  things  ;  and 
also  the  Holy  Ghost  whom  God  hath  given 
to  them  that  obey  him."  This  of  course, 
is  the  gist  of  the  matter,  for  which  the 
whole  speech  was  invented;  the  apostles 
must  testify  officially  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  crucified  Messiah  and  the  possession 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  all  "that  obey  him." 
But  the  invention  is  too  obvious  in  this 
piece. 

The  narrator  having  concluded  the  speech 
of  Peter  adds  this  note:  "When  they 
heard  that  they  were  cut  to  their  heart, 
and  took  counsel  to  slay  them."  If  the  high 
priest  and  his  subordinates  together  with 
the  council  and  the  senate  of  all  the  child- 
ren of  Israel  had  been  a  band  of  lawless 
savages,  an  infuriated  mob,  or  the  secret 
tribunal  of  the  Spanish  inquisition,  such 
proceedings  might  appear  probable.  But 
among  the  religious,  literary,  political,  and 
judicial  representatives, the  highest  authori- 
ties, the  supreme  tribunal  of  a  nation  svhich 
for  fourteen  centuries  had  been  guided  and 
governed  by  the  laws  of  Moses,  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  prophets  and  the  inductions  of 
their  schoolmen,  in  such  an  official  body 
transacting  public  business  before  the  pub- 
lic eye— such  lawless  proceedings  are  utter- 
ly incredible.  The  spirit  of  that  age,  from 
which  rabbinical  jurisprudence  with  its 
Talmuds  and  its  casuistry  sprung,  led  to 
an  overscrupulous  and  hair-splitting  exe- 
gese  in  expounding  the  Law ;  so  much  so 


152  ORIGIN  OP 

that  the  spirit  frequently  was  lost  sight  of 
by  a  tenacious  attachment  to  the  letter  of 
the  law,  and  the  Law  of  Moses  was  so 
highly  venerated  that  it  was  the  very  cause 
of  the  zealous  resistance  offered  to  Rome. 
Among  such  a  people  and  in  such  an  age 
the  supreme  tribunal  can  not  possibly  defy 
every  law  and  every  idea  of  justice,  and 
take  counsel  to  slay  twelve  persons  whose 
guilt  consisted  of  words.  Here  the  author 
of  "The  Acts,"  or  his  transcriber,  sur- 
rounded as  he  most  likely  was  by  a  semi- 
barous  populace,  exhibits  his  entire  ignor- 
ance of  Jewish  law  and  Jewish  character, 
misled  as  has  been  stated  by  the  story  of 
Ananias  and  James. 

The  laws  of  the  Jews  of  that  age  are  well 
known.  The  Mosaic  law  lies  before  us  to- 
day as  it  did  then  before  them,  and  that 
code  gives  no  power  to  any  tribunal  to  con- 
demn a  criminal  except  on  the  positive 
testimony  of  two  or  more  witnesses.  In 
the  case  before  us  no  witness  was  heard, 
none  were  deemed  necessary.  Gamliel, 
who,  as  we  shall  see  below,  pleaded  the 
cause  of  the  apostles,  and  successfully  too, 
must  have,  first  and  foremost,  alluded  to 
the  fact  that  there  was  no  case  before  the 
tribunal,  on  account  of  no  witnesses. 
That  " doctor  of  the  law"  who  was  "had 
in  reputation  among  all  the  people"  could 
not  possibly  be  guilty  of  so  gross  a  blunder : 
the  writer  of  this  part  of  "  The  Acts"  must 
have  made  it.  The  tribunal  was  not  an  ex- 
cited or  infuriated  mob,  for  they  listened 


CHRISTIANITY.  153 

patiently  to  Gamliel's  plea,  "and  to  him 
they  agreed." 

Beside  all  these  points,  the  laws  then  in 
force  among  the  Jews  are  well  known.  They 
are  preserved  in  the  undisputed  paragraphs 
of  the  Mishna  (.rut?D  DHD)  We  must  here 
deviate  from  our  course  and  acquaint  the 
reader  with  the  main  laws,  as  far  as  they 
interest  us  here. 

The  Sanhedrin,  the  senate  and  supreme 
tribunal,  or  also  the  high  court  (Beth  Din 
Haggadol]  of  Jerusalem,  was  the  highest 
authority,  according  to  the  Jewish  laws,  in 
all  judicial,  legislative,  and  executive  mat- 
ters. There  was  no  appeal  from  the  de- 
cisions or  the  ordinances  of  that  body; 
nor  was  there  any  person  in  Israel,  except 
the  Herodian  kings,  who  was  not  subject 
to  that  body — the  high  priest  no  less  than 
the  private  citizen,  was  subject  to  its  de- 
cisiona  and  ordinances ;  the  ecclesiastical 
affairs  no  less  than  the  political  and  judi- 
cial matters  of  the  nation  were  under  its 
supremacy. 

The  authority  of  the  body  is  derived  di- 
rectly from  the  Laws  of  Moses  (Deut.  xvii, 
8  to  13),  where  the  perpetual  existence  of 
the  supreme  tribunal  is  ordained,  and  the 
penalty  of  death  is  threatened  to  those  who 
violate  its  decisions  or  ordinances  as  pro- 
mulgated by  its  head,  be  he  priest  or  lay- 
man. The  penalty  of  death  in  this  case, 
however,  was  limited  in  after  times  to  the 
rebellious  judge  only,  if  he  was  qualified 
by  the  law  to  occupy  a  seat  in  the  Sanhed- 
11 


154  OBIGIN  OF 

rin,  and  he  decided  a  cause  wittingly 
against  any  decision  or  ordinance  of  the 
supreme  tribunal,  and  any  person  or  per- 
sons had  acted  in  accordance  with  such  un- 
lawful decision.  Such  a  culprit  was  called 
Saken  Mamreh,  "a  rebellious  senator." 
The  origin  of  this  body  was  ascribed  to  a 
divine  ordinance  delivered  by  Moses, 
(Numbers  xi,)  and  tradition  maintains  the 
perpetual  existence  of  this  tribunal,  in  all 
ages  of  the  Jewish  history,  also  during  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  from  Moses  to  the 
third  century  A.  C.  It  is  noticed  frequent- 
ly in  the  Bible  under  the  name  of  "the  eld- 
ers of  Israel,"  in  the  apocryphies  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  rabbinical  litera- 
ture as  "the  great  synod"  or  the  "  Sanhed- 
rin";  so  it  is  also  noticed  by  Josephus, 
Philo  and  the  New  Testament.  These  are 
"the  Pharisees  who  sit  in  the  seat  of 
Moses." 

This  senate  was  composed  of  seventy-one 
persons,  because  the  first  council  of  elders 
was  composed  of  seventy  men  and  Moses. 
They  held  their  offices  during  good  behav- 
ior. Vacancies  were  filled  by  the  promo- 
tion of  judges  from  the  next  lower  court, 
the  Sanhedrin  of  twenty-three,  whose 
place  of  session  was  at  the  gate  of  the  tem- 
ple. The  vacancies  of  this  lower  body 
were  filled  by  the  promotion  of  judges 
from  the  next  lower  court,  also  of  twenty- 
three  persons,  whose  place  of  sessions  was 
on  the  temple  mount.  Vacancies  again  in 
this  court  were  filled  by  the  promotion  of 


CHRISTIANITY.  155 

ordained  judges  from  any  place  in  Pales- 
tine. Judges  were  originally  ordained  by 
a  committee  of  the  senate  (afterwards  by 
the  three  highest  officers  only).  Commit" 
tees  were  sent  by  the  senate  throughout 
the  country,  they  ordained  judges  by  the 
Semichah  "  laying  the  hands  upon  the  head 
of  the  candidate,"  who  was  required  to  be 
"a  sage  who  fears  sin,  who  is  humble  and 
meek,  of  pleasant  deportment  and  beloved 
by  the  people"  (Maimonides,  Yad.H.Sanh. 
ii.  8).  These  latter  qualifications  could  be 
ascertained  by  a  popular  vote  only.  Each 
senator,  therefore,  had  to  be  originally  ap- 
pointed by  a  senate  committee,  as  being 
worthy  of  a  judgeship,  and  had  then  to  work 
his  way  through  two  higher  courts  before 
he  was  admitted  to  that  grave  body.  It  is 
not  likely,  therefore,  that  the  senate  was 
composed  of  any  ignorant  or  unworthy 
persons. 

The  senate  was  presided  over  by  one 
elected  prince  Nassi,  and  two  inferior  offi- 
cers, the  Ab  Beth  Din,  or  chief  justice,  and 
the  Haham,  or  ecclesiastical  chief.  It  had 
three  scribes  or  secretaries  who  recorded 
the  transactions  (Mishnah,  Sanhedrin,  iv. 
3).  The  place  of  session  was  in  a  hall  ad- 
joining the  temple,  called  Lishihath  Haga- 
zithj  "the  hall  of  hewn  stones."  They  sat 
in  a  semi-circular  line,  the  Nassi  in  the 
center,  the  two  other  officers  on  his  both 
sides,  then  on  both  sides  the  senators  ac- 
cording to  rank.  The  scribes  stood  before 
them.  There  were  seated  before  them 
11* 


156  ORIGIN  OF 

three  rows  of  three  ranks  of  doctors ;  the 
first  row  acted  as  proxies  to  the  senate, 
those  of  the  second  row  were  proxies  to  the 
first,  and  of  the  third  to  the  second.  Their 
time  of  session  for  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness, after  having  been  convoked  by  the 
ruler,  was  daily,  Sabbaths  and  holidays 
excepted,  from  the  morning,  after  the  close 
of  divine  service  in  the  temple,  to  the  be- 
ginning ot  the  evening  service,  called  Min- 
ckah. 

The  names  of  the  presiding  officers  of 
this  body,  from  the  time  of  the  first  Asmo- 
neaii  ruler  to  the  dissolution  of  the  body, 
are  preserved  in  the  rabbinical  literature, 
especially  in  JPirke  Aboth  (Section  1.)  and 
elsewhere.  One  hundred  years  before  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  Hillel,  the  Baby- 
lonian, was  appointed  Nassi,  which  dig- 
nity ever  afterwards  remained  in  that 
family.  Hillel  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
Simon,  who  was  again  succeeded  .by  .his 
son  Garnliel,  and  also  he  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  Simon,  who  was  slain  by  the  Ro- 
mans after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  In  the 
time  on  which  we  treat,  either  Gamliel  or 
his  son  Simon  must  have  presided  over  the 
Sanhedrin,  a  fact  which  the  author  of 
"The  Acts"  did  not  know,  and  makes  the 
high  priest  to  preside  over  the  senate, 
something  which  never  happened.  High 
priests  may  have  been  members  of  that 
body,  but  none  of  them  is  noticed  in  the 
nomenclature  of  the  senatorial  officers, 


CHRISTIANITY.  157 

and  those  nomenclatures  are  undoubtedly 
authentic. 

In  political  matters  the  senate  alone  was 
sovereign,  the  kings  or  rulers,  up  to  the 
time  of  Herod  I.,  were  responsible  to  this 
body,  and  could  not  declare  war  without 
their  consent.  The  enlargement  of  the 
city  of  Jerusalem,  or  of  the  temple  district, 
and  the  appointment  of  criminal  courts 
where  there  were  none,  belonged  to  its 
functions.  It  had  appellate  and  final  juris- 
diction in  all  cases;  original  jurisdiction, 
however,  it  had  but  in  a  few  cases,  among 
which  is  also  the  case  of  the  false  prophet. 
The  case  of  the  apostles,  as  narrated  by 
the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  could  not  law- 
fully be  tried  before  the  senate  except  on 
appeal  from  a  lower  court.  Luke  was  not 
acquainted  with  the  Jewish  l&ws,  and  so 
he  embellishes  his  story  by  pompous  meet- 
ings of  the  senate  in  extraordinary  ses- 
sions an«l  accompanied  by  extraordinary 
events,  neither  of  which  can  be  true,  as 
little  indeed  as  a  spiritual  medium  would 
this  day  be  tried  before  the  senate  of  the 
United  States,  or  an  angel  would  appear  to 
open  anybody's  jail. 

The  apostles  accused  of  thaumaturgy 
and  necromancy  must  have  been  tried  be- 
fore the  usual  criminal  court  of  twenty- 
three  persons,  and  especially  the  one  which 
had  its  "hall  upon  the  temple  mount."  It 
is  possible,  indeed,  that  they  were  charged 
with  disorderly  conduct  in  the  temple,  as 
they  always  were  at  the  porch  of  Solomon 


158  ORIGIN  OF 

and  preached  there.  Their  being  arrested 
by  the  captain  of  the  temple,  indeed  points 
to  this  charge;  but  then  they  must  have 
been  placed  before  the  court  of  priests, 
called  Sikne  Kehunah  or  Beth  Din  shel  Koh- 
anim  (Mishnah  Jomah  i,  5;  Ketuboth  i,  5), 
whose  functions  and  privileges  are  un- 
known now;  so  much,  however,  is  known 
that  those  courts  had  no  right  over  life  and 
death,  and  that  the  high-priest  did  not  pre- 
side over  them.  It  may  be,  however,  that 
the  apostles  were  placed  first  before  the 
court  of  priests,  wh  ere  they  were  accused 
of  disorderly  conduct  in  the  temple,  and 
then  they  were  sent  before  the  criminal 
court  for  prosecution,  where  they  were  also 
charged  with  the  practice  of  thaumaturgy 
and  necromancy. 

But  also  in  this  case,  which  we  can  only 
guess  from  the  sources  in  which  nothing 
is  certain— the  author  of  this  portion  of 
"  The  Acts"  fails  entirely  to  state  the  truth 
in  the  matter.  We  must  never  forget  that 
a  criminal  court,  with  the  officers  of  a  tem- 
ple together  with  the  high  priest,  is  not  a 
body  of  lawless  ruffians,  or  an  infuriated 
mob.  It  is  but  fair  to  suppose  that  the 
proceedings  of  such  a  body  are,  in  form  at 
least,  according  to  law,  which  is  not  at  all 
the  case  with  the  proceedings  described  in 
"  The  Acts."  The  criminal  court  of  twenty- 
three  judges  was  seated  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  Sanhedrin,  with  three  rows  of 
law  students  before  them,  and  with  two 
scribes,  or  three  according  to  Rabbi  Judah. 


CHRISTIANITY.  159 

The  process  was  accusatorial  and  not  in- 
quisitorial as  in  the  Roman  law ;  the  wit- 
nesses accused  the  criminal.  In  cases  of 
capital  crime  the  witnesses  were  admon- 
ished thus :  "  Say  nothing  of  what  was 
said  to  you  or  of  what  you  have  heard,  as 
a  witness  from  the  mouth  of  a  witness,  or 
what  you  may  have  heard  from  the  mouth 
of  any  veracious  man;  probably  you 
know  not  that  we  will  examine  and  cross- 
examine  you,"  <fee.  (Mishnah,  Sanhedrin,  iv, 
5).  The  entire  formula  is  literally  pre- 
served. It  was  intended  to  deter  the  wit- 
ness because  the  aversion  to  capital  pun- 
ishment was  almost  general.  The  punish- 
ment of  the  false  witness,  according  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  was  severe ;  he  suffered  the 
punishment  which  his  testimony,  if  true, 
would  have  brought  on  the  culprit.  The 
witness  was  informed  thereof  before  he 
testified.  Each  witness  was  heard  alone. 
He  was  asked  seven  accidental  questions, 
viz:  "In  what  year  after  the  jubilee,  in 
which  year,  month,  date  and  day  ;  in  which 
hour  of  the  day  and  in  what  place,"  was 
this  crime  committed?  after  which  other 
circumstantial  questions  were  asked.  So 
every  witness  was  examined  separately. 
If  their  testimony  disagreed  in  any  of  these 
points,  the  case  was  dismissed.  If  they 
agreed  in  every  particular,  the  witnesses 
were  done  and  the  debate  began.  Each  of 
the  law  students  was  entitled  to  speak  in 
defence  of  the  culprit,  and  if  he  did  so,  he 
was  treated  for  that  day  as  a  member  of 


160  ORIGIN  OF 

the  court.  The  culprit  also  had  the  right 
of  self-defence.  If  the  court  found  the 
oulprit  not  guilty  after  his  defence  had 
spoken,  he  was  dismissed  the  same  day. 
The  defence  had  the  whole  of  the  first  day 
of  debate,  and  nene  was  permitted  to  speak 
for  the  prosecution  (Sanhedrin  iv,  1).  If 
the  culprit  was  not  cleared  the  first  day, 
the  court  adjourned  to  the  next,  then  the 
side*of  the  prosecution  was  heard.  Those 
who  had  spoken  in  favor  of  the  culprit 
could  not  speak  against  him.  At  last 
the  scribes  read  the  arguments  and  a  vote 
of  the  court  was  taken.  One  majority  for 
guilty  cleared  the  culprit,  two  majority 
condemned  him.  If  they  could  not  agree, 
judges  were  added  even  to  the  number  of 
seventy-one,  until  they  agreed  lawfully. 
(Sanhedrin  v). 

Such  was  the  law  in  the  time  when  the 
apostles  were  tried,  and  we  have  no  reason 
to  believe  that  any  exceptions  thereof 
would  have  been  permitted  in  any  case. 
The  author  of  this  portion  of  "  The  Acts" 
describes  a  lawless  and  therefore  an  untrue 
proceeding  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
There  are  no  witnesses  at  all,  the  high 
priest  opens  an  inquisition.  This  might 
have  been  done  in  a  Roman  court,  not  in  a 
Jewish  one.  The  case  could  not  possibly 
have  been  brought  before  the  Sanhedrin  ; 
still  that  author  states  expressly  that  the 
high  priest  called  together  "all  the  senate 
of  the  children  of  Israel."  The  high  priest 
accuses  them  of  having  preached  certain 


CHRISTIANITY.  161 

doctrines;  this  was  no  crime  in  Palestine, 
unless  the  culprit  preached  idolatry.  He 
furthermore  accuses  them  of  having  THE 
INTENTION  to  bring  the  blood  of  Jesus  upon 
them  ;  while  in  Jerusalem  nobody  could 
be  called  to  account  for  his  intentions,  and 
the  apostles  certainly  never  intended  any 
such  thing.  The  first  thing  the  court  does 
after  Peter  has  spoken,  "they  took  counsel 
to  slay  them,"  which  again  is  contrary  to 
law;  first  and  for  the  whole  first  day  the 
defence  must  speak,  the  second  day  was 
for  the  prosecution.  So  the  whole  trial, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  fictitious. 
There  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it,  except 
probably  the  main  fact,  that  the  apostles 
were  prosecuted  for  disorderly  conduct  in 
the  temple,forthaumaturgy  or  necromancy, 
and  were  dismissed  without  any  further 
trouble.  This  may  be  true  or  it  may  not 
be.  The  sources  before  us  are  no  testi- 
mony. 

The  speech  of  Gamliel,  "a  Pharisee,  a 
doctor  of  the  law,  had  in  reputation  among 
all  the  people  "—in  defense  of  the  apostles, 
reads  thus  : 

"  Ye  men  of  Israel,  take  heed  to  your- 
selves what  ye  intend  to  do  as  touching 
these  men : 

"  For  before  these  days  rose  up  Theudas, 
boasting  himself  to  be  somebody ;  to  whom 
a  number  of  men,  about  four  hundred, 
joined  themselves :  who  was  slain;  and  all, 
as  many  as  obeyed  him,  were  scattered, 
and  brought  to  nought. 

"  After  this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Gali- 
lee, in  the  days  of  the  taxing,  and  drew 


162  ORIGIN  OF 

away  much  people  after  him :  he  also  per- 
ished; and  all,  even  as  many  as  obeyed 
him,  were  dispersed. 

"  And  now  I  say  unto  you,  Refrain  from 
these  men,  and  let  them"  alone :  for  if  this 
counsel  or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will 
come  to  nought : 

"  But  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  can  not  over- 
throw it;  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to 
fight  against  God." 

Here  again  the  question  rises,  who  re- 
ported this  speech  to  Luite?  The  apostles 
on  trial  could  not  think  of  acting  as  re- 
porters to  anybody.  Besides,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  sheer  impossibility  that  a  body  of 
men  so  infuriated  against  their  victims 
that,  without  any  process  of  law,  they 
"take  counsel  to  slay  them,"  should  at 
once,  by  these  few  and  simple  words,  which 
are  artless  imitations  of  Scriptural  pass- 
ages* be  moved  to  a  sense  of  justice  and  a 
feeling  of  compassion  to  dismiss  the  vic- 
tims unhurt,  as  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  " 
tells  us.  Such  a  sudden  transition  of  feel- 
ings is  purely  dramatical,  but  no  reality. 
It  appears  much  more  likely  that  Luke  in- 
vented the  situation  to  introduce  Gamliel, 
the  teacher  of  Paul,  as  the  advocate  of  the 
apostles,  not  only  to  please  the  Paulites, 
but  also  the  Jews,  who  honored  and  res- 
pected two  doctors  of  the  law  of  the  same 
name,  both  princes  of  the  senate,  both  men 
of  great  reputation  and  authority  among 
the  Jews,  viz :  Gamliel  the  Elder,  the 
grand-son  of  Hillel,  and  Gamliel  of  Jam- 
nia,  grand-son  of  the  former.  This  histori- 

*  Prov.  xxi.  80 ;  Judges  vi,  2«  to  32. 


CHRISTIANITY.  163 

cal  name  may  have  been  chosen  for  the 
same  reason,  as  stated  before,  to  con- 
vince the  skeptic  Jews  that  their  learned 
forefathers  already  were  favorably  inclined 
to  the  apostles. 

The  essence  of  the  speech  itself  is  un- 
doubtedly historical.  It  is  an  expression 
of  the  feelings  of  the  Pharisees  toward  the 
primitive  Christians',  a  subject  which  we 
will  fully  explain  in  the  next  chapter. 
The  Pharisees,  themselves  guilty  of  em- 
ploying superstitious  means  to  gain  the 
confidence  of  the  ignorant  masses,  saw  no 
wrong  in  the  practice  of  thaumaturgy  and 
necromancy  on  the  part  of  the  apostles,  to 
spread  their  doctrines  and  gain  confidence 
for  themselves.  On  the  whole,  the  doctrines 
of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Christians  (before 
Paul)  did  not  differ  much,  and  the  Phari- 
sees were  used  to  similar  differences  on  the 
part  of  the  Essences,  who,  after  all,  stood 
in  high  reputation  for  piety  and  wisdom. 

The  author  of  "The  Acts"  then  tells 
us  that,  the  apostles  were  not  killed,  but 
they  were  beaten  and  commanded  not  to 
speak  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 

It  is  not  against  the  Jewish  law  to  beat 
persons  who  violate  the  injunctions  or  de- 
crees of  a  court.  Therefore,  it  is  possible 
that  the  apostles,  after  having  been  warned 
not  to  teach  the  name  of  Jesus  by  the  super- 
stitious means  which  they  employed,  and 
they  having  violated  this  decree  of  the 
court,  were  beaten  exactly  according  to  the 
law.  This  ptirt  of  the  narrative  is  proba- 


164  ORIGIN  OF 

ble;  still  it  is  by  no  means  certain.  The 
whole  persecution  stories  have  so  much  of 
invention  plainly  and  openly  expressed, 
that  one  must  see  at  once  the  author  did 
not  intend  to  write  authentic  history,  and 
the  transcriber,  knowing  this,  shaped  it  to 
suit  himself. 

In  the  third  persecution,  James,  the 
brother  of  John,  was  slain,  and  Peter  was 
saved  by  a  miracle,  the  author  of  "The 
Acts"  informs  us  (xii,  l,&c.).  This  was  the 
third  persecution,  and  can  have  happened 
either  under  King  Agrippa  I.,  hence  previ- 
ous to  44  A.  C.,  for  in  that  year  Agrippa 
died;  or  under  Herod  II.,  who  succeeded 
Agrippa  I.,  not  indeed  as  king,  in  any  po- 
litical sense  of  the  term,  for  the  land  was 
governed  by  Roman  officers,  but  as  the 
sovereign  of  the  temple  and  all  ecclesiasti- 
cal matters.  (Joseph.  Ant.  xx,  1,  3,  and  v, 
2).  This  is  the  exact  time  when  Theudas 
and  the  two  sons  of  Judas,  the  Galilean, 
viz:  James  and  Simon,  were  slain. 

Luke  evidently  thought  of  Agrippa  I., 
whose  sudden  death  at  Cesaria  he,  some- 
what like  Josephus,  ascribes  to  a  miracu- 
lous cause.  Still  this  could  not  possibly 
have  been  the  case;  if  the  second  persecu- 
tion happened  about  50  A.  C.  as  the  names 
mentioned  by  Luke  prove  beyond  a  doubt, 
the  third  and  last  could  not  have  taken 
place  before  44  A.  C.,  i.  e.  six  or  more  years 
before  the  second. 

As  it  will  be  necessary  to  our  plan  to 
write  an  extra  chapter  to  investigate  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  165 

statements  concerning  the  martyrdom  of 
James  and  Stephen,  we  drop  this  point 
here,  together  with  the  chronology  and 
the  peculiar  coincidence  that  the  victims  of 
Luke  on  this  occasion  are  James  and  Simon 
(or  Peter)  exactly  as  those  of  Josephus,  the 
sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  JAMES  and  SIMON 
who  were  slain  by  Tiberius  Alexander, 
about  the  same  time  of  which  Luke 
speaks.f 

The  story  itself  offers  conspicuous  fea- 
tures of  ,a  fictitious  character.  It  runs 
thus.:  Herodus  Agrippa  I.,  noticed  by 
Josephus  and  the  Talmud  as  the  best  and 
most  jrious  of  the  H-erodian  princes,  perse- 
cuted the  Christians.  His  uncle  Herod 
Antipas,  .having  killed  John  the  Baptist 
"  by  the  sword,"  this  Herod  killed  James 
the  brother  <of  a  John,  also  by  the  sword. 
The  king  being  a  Pharisee,  the  author 
again  changes  the  situation.  He  appears 
to  have  forgotten  his  former  statements  in 
this  respect.  Agrippa  is  not  afraid  of  the 
people,  as  Luke  noticed  on  all  former  oc- 
casions ;  on  the  contrary,  "  he  saw  it 
pleased  the  Jews,"  all  of  them,  Sadducees 
and  Pharisees,  priests  and  laymen,  so  that 
all  on  a  sudden  the  Christians  had  no  more 
friends  in  Jerusalem,  while  but  shortly 
before  this  their  friends  were  so  numerous 
that  the  high  priest  and  the  senate  were 
afraid  to  harm  the  apostles.  This  sounds 
incredible.  The  king  took  also  Peter  and 
put  him  in  prison.  The  prisoner  was 
t  Joseph.  Ant.  xx,  v,  2. 


166  ORIGIN  OP 

guarded  by  "four  quaternions  of  soldiers  " 
to  make  sure  of  him  over  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  after  which  he  was  to  be 
delivered  to  the  people.  This  precaution 
was  taken  against  the  industrious  angels 
who  had  played  the  Jews  a  trick  on  a  for- 
mer occasion,  against  which  Agrippa  took 
precautionary  measures.  The  end  fully 
justified  this.  The  angel,  the  inevitable 
coadjutor  in  all  Gospel  stories,  the  angel  of 
the  Lord,  who  was  nowhere  when  Stephen 
was  stoned  and  James  beheaded,  who,  it 
appears,  did  not  care  much  for  a  couple  of 
saints,  still  moved  by  the  incessant  prayer 
"of  the  church"  (here  the  church  is  brought 
in  in  her  saving  capacity)  came  "  upon  " 
Peter  in  his  prison,  got  him  up  and  dressed, 
went  with  him  through  the  "four  quatern- 
ions of  soldiers"  to  the  iron  gate,  after  the 
chains  had  fallen  from  Peter's  limbs,  and 
the  gate  "opened  to  them  of  his  own  accord 
and  they  went  out."  The  angel  vanished, 
and  Peter  in  his  surprise  soliloquized : 
"  Now  I  know  of  a  surety  that  the  Lord 
hath  sent  his  angel,  and  hath  delivered  me 
out  of  the  hand  of  Herod,  and  from  all  the 
expectation  of 'the  Jews."  Peter  solilo- 
quized and  Luke  knew  precisely  what  he 
said  in  that  painful  situation.  Peter,  him- 
self a  Jew,  said  that  God  saved  him  "from 
all  the  expectation  of  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE 
JEWS."  It  takes  an  unusual  amount  of 
faith  not  to  discover  the  fictitious  charac- 
ter of  these  statements.  Peter  then  went 
to  the  house  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  John, 


CHRISTIANITY.  167 

where  many  of  the  congregation  were 
assembled.  He  knocked,  and  after  some 
difficulty  was  admitted.  In  their  astonish- 
ment those  good  people  thought  it  was  his 
ghost.  He  having  told  them  his  marvel- 
ous story,  left  the  city,  "and  went  into 
another  place."  That  is  the  last  we  hear  of 
him. 

The  story  closes  with  a  dramatical  catas- 
trophe. Herod,  on  learning  that  the  angel 
had  cheated  him  out/  of  his  prisoner,  "  ex- 
amined the  keepers,  and  commanded  that 
they  should  be  put  to  death,"  viz :  the  four 
quaternions  of  soldiers.  All  this  people 
must  believe.  In  the  land  of  the  Book  and 
the  Law  four  quaternions  of  men  are 
killed,  somewhat  like  Dahomey  justice,  by 
order  of  a  king  who  enjoyed  the  reputation 
of  a  law-abiding  prince,  and  all  that  be- 
cause an  innocent  prisoner  escaped.  Where 
is  the  justice  of  God  in  this  case?  What 
was  the  offense  of  those  keepers  that  the 
angels  suffered  them  to  be  slain?  The 
angel  who  rescued  Peter  did  a  murderous 
work  and  ought  to  have  been  punished  for 
it,  especially  because  he  did  not  rescue  the 
keepers  also.  But  we  know  already  that 
the  story  is  not  true ;  here,  however,  we  see 
that  the  writer  thereof  had  a  very  imper- 
fect sense  of  justice.  He  did  not  care  much 
for  a  few  soldiers,  if  their  death  was  re- 
quired to  wind  up  a  story  with  a  proper 
cadence. 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  fact  that  after  the 
doctrines  of  Paul,  especially  the  abolition 


168  ORIGIN  OF 

of  the  Law,  had  sufficiently  spread  among 
the  new  Christians,  the  Jews  must  have 
hated  the  rising  sect,  as  the  Catholics  did 
the  young  Protestants ;  for  the  Christiani- 
ty of  Paul  was  entirely  and  radically  averse 
to  Judaism  as  understood  in  those  days. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts"  places  this  third  persecution  after 
the  conversion  of  Paul ;  still  it  can  not  be 
accepted  as  a  fact,  because  the  story  in  it- 
self is  of  a  fabulous  character;  in  the  year  44 
A.  C.,  Paul's  peculiar  doctrines  could  not 
have  been  known  yet,  and  the  main  object 
of  the  story  to  get  Peter  out  of  the  way,  is 
too  obvious  not  to  be  observed  on  the  first 
glance. 

The  author  of  "The  Acts"  was  in  a 
peculiar  dilemma.  Instead  of  describing 
a  natural  course  of  events,  as  one  might 
expect,  so  that  the  apostles,  after  the  death 
of  their  master,  mast  have  gone  back  to 
Galilee  and  remained  there  for  some  time, 
after  which  some  or  all  of  them  may  have 
come  back  to  Jerusalem,  where  in  course 
of  time  they  established  a  congregation 
which  gradually  and  naturally  increased, 
he  reverses  the  order  and  begins  at  once 
with  a  large  congregation  which  enjoyed 
the  admiration  of  the  masses,  and  filled  all 
Jerusalem  with  their  doctrines.  To  this 
end  he  must  have  miracles,  angels,  pom- 
pous assemblies,  speeches,  sensations,  ex- 
citements, public  trials  and  all  the  con- 
comitants thereof,  which  he  was  obliged  to 
invent  and  to  decorate.  But  all  this  proved 


CHRISTIANITY.  169 

worthless  at  the  end,  when  in  the  year  66 
A.  C.,  Cestius  Gallus  besieged  Jerusalem, 
all  the  Christians  left  the  city  to  settle 
down  in  Pella,  in  Celosyria,  and  all  of 
them  were  no  more  than  500  souls,  whom 
the  Jews,  then  in  full  and  undisputed  pos- 
session of  the  city,  suffered  to  depart  in 
peace,  as  they,  like  our  modern  Quakers, 
were  non-combatants.  This  proved  that 
all  former  statements  in  regard  to  numbers 
and  their  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  popu- 
lation were  incorrect  and  highly  exagger- 
ated. Besides,  with  the  first  authentic 
notice  of  the  congregation,  we  find  James 
and  not  Peter  at  the  head,  and  the  disrinc- 
'tions  between  Jews  and  Christians  much 
too  faint  to  call  the  latter  even  a  sect  in  the 
stricter  sense  of  this  term.  To  come  out  of 
this  dilemma  Luke  was  obliged  to  invent 
persecutions  which  had  no  real  existence, 
to  show  why  the  congregation  decreased  so 
rapidly,  and  why  Peter  left  it.  There  may 
have  been  some  law  proceedings  against 
the  first  teachers. of  Christianity  for  the 
practice  of  thaumaturgy  and  necroman- 
cy, or  for  the  disturbance  in  the  temple  by 
the  enthusiastic  and  overzealous  teachers 
of  the  new  doctrines ;  but  those  proceed- 
ings certainly  did  not  amount  to  much. 
The  persecutions  as  the  author  of  "The 
Acts"  narrates  them  are  certainly  ficti- 
tious. The  same,  we  have  no  doubt,  was 
the  case  with  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen 
and  James,  the  brother  of  John ;  still,  be- 
ore  we  can  prove  this,  we  must  devote  a 
12 


170  ORIGIN  OP 

chapter   to   the    apostles'  creed,    and    the 

causes  of  its  origin  and  success. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  APOSTLES'  CREED. 
The  brief  summary  of  the  principal  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  which  bears  the 
name  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  Mosheim  felt 
already  compelled  to  admit,  is  not  the  work 
of  the  apostles.  That  historian  says, 
"There  is  much  more  reason  and  judg- 
ment in  the  opinion  of  those  who  think 
that  this  creed  was  not  all  composed  at 
once,  but  from  small  beginnings,  was  im- 
perceptibly augmented  in  proportion  to 
the  growth  of  heresy,  and  according  to  the 
exigencies  and  circumstances  of  the  church, 
from  whence  it  was  designed  to  banish  the 
errors  that  daily  arose."*  Upward  of  ninety 
different  creeds  which  were  heresies,  are 
admitted  to  have  existed  within  the  first 
three  centuries  of  Christianity.  But  the 
"  God  of  God  "  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed  was  not  adopted  before  the 
council  of  Nice,  327  A.  C.;  and  the  phrase 
"  He  descended  into  hell"  is  of  a  still  more 
recent  date.  Lately  one  Michel  Nicolas 
wrote  a  book  on  this  subject. f  He  comes 


*Ecclesiastical  History,  <fec.,  London,  182;],  vol.  i,  p. 
116. 

ILe  Symbole  de  Apotres;  essai  historique.  Par 
Michel  Nicolas  ;  Paris  :  Levy  freres,  l*C7. 


CHRISTIANITY.  171 

to  nearly  the  same  conclusion  with  Mos- 
heim.  The  creed  as  it  now  is,  was  at  no 
time  entirely  new,  nor  was  it  the  composi- 
tion of  any  one  author  or  body  of  authors, 
nor  even  of  any  one  period.  It  formed  the 
final  development  of  a  series  of  changes, 
the  expansion  of  a  number  of  antecedent 
formulas,  tentative  and  incomplete.  The 
common  root  of  the  whole  was  the  profes- 
sion of  faith  demanded  of  the  neophyte  in 
baptism.  The  baptismal  profession  had 
always  in  it  somewhat  of  a  secret  formula, 
in  analogy  with  the  pagan  rites  of  initia- 
tion. It  was  forbidden  to  put  it  in  writing, 
a  prohibition  which  can  be  traced  till  the 
latter  half  of  the  second  century.  Tertul- 
lian  (200  A.  C.)  records  the  formula  us  it 
then  existed:  Credo  in  Pair  cm,  Filiumt 
Spiritum  Sanctum  et  in  Sanctum  JZcclesiam. 
This  is  undoubtedly  the  original  from 
which  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  gradually 
developed,  and  which  was  in  the  second  or 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  added 
to  Matthew's  Gospel :  "Go  ye,therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  "i 

IThe  history  of  the  successive  phases  through 
which  the  primitive  formula  can  be  shown  to  have 
passed  is  tantamount  to  a  summary  of  the  state 
and  progress  of  dogmatic  belief  in  the  Church.  The 
chief  modifications  of  the  simple  form  of  belief  in 
the  Father,Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  concisely  summed 
up  by  M.  Nicolas  at  the  end  of  his  critical  inquiry: 

Premiere  modification.— Dans  la  seconde  moitie  du 
deuxieme  siecle,  on  y  ajouta  un  quatrieme  terme  re- 
latif  a  1'Eglise,  pour  affirmer  qu'eile  seule,a  1'exclu- 
sion  de  toutesles  sectes  dissidentes  et  rivaies,  posse- 
dait  etcontinuait  la  veritable  tradition  apostolique. 
La  confession  de  foi,  pour  etre  udmis  au  bupteme,  tut 
12* 


172  OKIGIN  OF 

Therefore  the  piece  read  in  the  churches 
as  the  Apostles'  Creed  affords  no  informa- 
tion of  what  the  Apostles  believed  or 
taught.  The  first  article  of  that  creed 
reads  thus :  "  I  believe  in  God,  the  Father 
Almighty,  Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth  "— 
or  as  the  other  version  reads  (there  are  two 
accepted  and  read  in  the  church) :  "  I  be- 
lieve in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
-  Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth ,  and  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible."  Peter  and 
his  co-laborers  among  the  Hebrews  did  cer- 

alors ;  "  Je  crois  au  Pere,  au  Fils,  au  Saint-Esprit  et  a 
la  sainte  Eglise."  Cette  nouvelle  formule  a  ete  le 
cadre  du  Symbole  des  Apotres,  qui  u'en  est  qu'un 
developpement. 

Seconds,  modification.— A.  mesure  qu'il  fut  necessaire 
de  mettre  les  fideles  en  garde  centre  les  erreurs, 
d'abord  des  gnostiques  da  toutes  denominations,  et 
ensuite  denovatiens  et  de  donastistes,  il  fallut  mar- 
quer  en  quel  sens  1'Eglise  entendait  chacun  des  quatre 
termesdela  formula  precedente.  C'est  articles  ex- 
plicatifs.  II  resulta  de  la  des  formulaires  plus  ou 
mois  confus.  d'une etendue relativement  considerable 
et  par  cela  meme  ne  respondant  pi?s  tres-bieu  a  1'usage 
auquel  ils  etaient  destines. 

Troisieme  modification.— II  faliut  les  simplifier  en 
en  elaguant  tout  ce  qui  n'etait  pas  strictement  neces- 
saire. De  ce  premier  travail  de  revision  sortireut  lea 
differents  Symboles  des  Apotres  qu'on  trouve  en 
usage,  a  la  fin  du  quatrieme  siecle,  a  Jerusalem,  a 
Alexandre,  a  Rome,  a  Aquilee,  dans  les  Eglises  de 
1'Afrique  proconsulaire, 

Qautrieme  modification.— ~Vers  le  commencement 
du  cinquieme  siecle,  le  Symbole  des  Apotres,  desor- 
mais  en  usage  seulement  dans  les  Eglises  latines,  fut 
complete  de  differents  articlesvemprnntesprmcipale- 
ment.  a  ce  qu'il  semb[e,  a  celui  de  1'Eglise  de  Jeru- 
salem, et  quelques-uns  pes  articles  en  furent  remanies 
dans  1'intention  evidente  de  les  rendre  des  expressions 
plus  claires  on  plus  exoctes  des  croyances  qui  y  sont 
exposes.  Ce  travail  eut  lieu  en  Afrique,  par  les  soins 
de  saint  Augustin. 

Cinquieme  modification.— Enfin,  au  sixieme  siecle,  on 
y  ajouta,  en  outre  de  quelques  mots  d'une  importance 
secondaire,  deux  articles,  celui  de  la  descente  de 
Jesus-Christ  aux  enfers,  qui  n'avait  ete  jusqu'alors 
que  dans  le  Credo  de  1'Eglise  d'Aquilee,  et  celui  de 
la  communion  de  saints,  qui  etait  entierement  nou- 
veau.  Le  Symbole  des  Apotres  se  trouva  de.3  ce  mo- 
ment deflnitivement  constitue. 


CHRISTIANITY.  173 

tainly  not  teach  this  doctrine,  because  there 
was  no  need  for  it,  as  every  child  in  Pales- 
tine knew  it.  It  was  undoubtedly  the 
principle  doctrine  which  they  afterward 
taught  the  Heathens  to  whom  this  was  new, 
but  in  Palestine  there  was  no  need  to  ad- 
vance it.  However  widely  the  sects  and 
the  schools  of  those  days  differed  on  essen- 
tial points,  in  this  particular  one  they  all 
agreed.  The  post-biblical  literature  of  the 
Hebrews  records  nowhere  any  difference  of 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  divine  essence,  na- 
ture or  attributes.  Hence  the  question 
rises,  what  did  the  Apostles  teach  their  fel- 
low Israelites  in  Jerusalem,  distinguishing 
their  system  of  religion  from  others  ? 

A  correct  reply  to  this  query  can  be  as- 
certained only  from  a  careful  comparison 
of  three-different  sources,  viz  : 

1.  From  the  statements  of  the  author  of 
"The  Acts."    But  here  we  must  always 
bear  in   mind  that  Luke's   tendency  was 
reconciliation  of  the  Christian  schools  ac- 
cording to  Paul  and  according  to  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus.    Therefore  his  statements 
must  be  carefully  compared   with  others 
before  they  can  be  adopted  as  facts. 

2.  From    the  genuine  epistles  of   Paul. 
The  polemic  points  of  these  epistles  show 
what  other  Christians  believed  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  Paul,  and  those  very  points 
of  disagreement  lead  us  to  that  which  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  believed  and  taught. 

3.  The    cotemporary    literature    of    the 
rabbis,    the    sentiments     and    conception 


174  OKIGIN  OF 

then  in  vogue,  as  recorded  by  various  au_ 
thors,  and  the  critical  sense,  to  distinguish 
the  probable  from  the  improbable. 

It  has  been  stated  before  that  the  Ebion- 
ites  and  the  Nazarenes  were  the  primitive 
Christians  among  the  Hebrews.  Their 
story  of  Jesus,  known  as  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  or  also  of  the  Nazarenes,  which 
was  accepted  into  the  canon,  differed  es- 
sentially from  the  canonical  gospels,  al- 
though the  synoptics  and  Matthew  espe- 
cially made  abstracts  and  adopted  much 
from  it.  The  Ebionites  believed  that  Jesus 
was  a  man,  born  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinary  course  of  nature. 
The  Nazarenes,  at  least  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, believed  that  Jesus  was  born  of  a 
virgin  and  was  also  in  a  certain  manner  of 
the  divine  nature.  But  this  certainly  was 
not  originally  an  article  of  their  faith  ;  in 
course  of  time  they  adopted  this  doc- 
trine from  the  Gentile  Christians,  al- 
though also  in  this  form  their  conception 
of  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus  was  far  differ- 
ent from  the  pagan  conception. 

The  idea  of  apotheosis  is  eminently  pagan 
as  is  the  "  Son  of  God."  In  Hebrew  litera- 
ture and  religion,  with  that  strict  mono- 
theism and  unalterable  spirituality  of  the 
Deity,  the  deification  of  a  man,  or  the  hu- 
manization  of  God,  is  entirely  foreign. 
This  was  especially  the  case  at  the  time  of 
the  origin  of  Christianity,  as  is  evident 
from  the  Aramaic  version  of  the  Penta- 
teuch by  Onkelos,  the  proselyte,  and  many 


CHRISTIANITY.  175 

rabbinical  passages,  when  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  plastic  gods  of  Greece  all  possi- 
ble attempts  were  made  to  render  the  poeti- 
cal tropes  of  the  Bible,  so  as  to  remove 
every  idea  of  corporality,  or  human  attri- 
butes and  passions,  from  the  infinite  Deity  ; 
when,  as  is  evident  from  Josephus  and  the 
Talmud,  they  went  so  far  as  not  even  to 
pronounce  the  Hebrew  proper  name  of 
God.  There  is  no  instance,  in  Hebrew 
literature,  of  apotheosis.  Enoch  and 
Elijah,  whom  popular  veneration  trans- 
ported alive  to  heaven,  were  not  supposed 
to  be  deities  ;  they  were  thought  to  be  an- 
gels, Syndalphou  and  Metathron.  In  the 
Bible,  Israel  is  styled  God's  first-born  son 
(Exodus  iv,  22,  23) :  ".Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Israel  is  my  first-born  son ;  and  I  say  unto 
thee,  Send  off  my  son,  that  he  may  serve 
me."  In  reference  to  this  passage,  which 
Moses  addressed  to  Pharaoh,  the  prophet 
Hosea  said :  "  For  Israel  was  a  lad  and  I 
loved  him, and  I  called  my  son  from  Egypt," 
(Hosea  xi,  1.)  The  Evangelist  referred  the 
last  part  of  this  verse  to  Jesus  without  ob- 
serving that  in  the  first  part  Israel  is  named 
as  the  object  which  was  loved,  hence  also 
which  was  called  from  Egypt.  Again 
Moses  said  to  Israel,  "Ye  are  sons  to  the 
Lord,  your  God,"  (Deuteronomy  xiv,  1.) 
The  prophet  Jeremiah,  introducing  the  Al- 
mighty as  speaking  of  Ephraim  or  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  has  Him  say,  "  Is  not 
Ephraim  a  dear  son  unto  me,  or  a  child 
that  I  dandle?  "  (Jercrn.  xxxi,  20.)  The 


176  ORIGIN  or 

prophet  Nathan  brought  to  King  David  the 
divine  message,  in  which  God  promised 
the  king  that  his  own  son  should  succeed 
to  the  throne  of  Israel,  who  should  build  a 
house  to  God ;  and  concerning  this  son,  the 
message  of  the  prophet  continues  :  "  I  shall 
be  unto  him  to  a  father,  and  he  shall  be 
unto  me  to  a  son."  (II.  Samuel,  vii.)  The 
connection  of  the  verses  in  that  passage 
skows  plainly  that  this  could  refer  to  the 
immediate  successor  of  David  only,  to  him 
•who  built  the  temple  on  Mount  Moriah. 
Therefore  this  very  King  Solomon  who 
wrote  the  Psalms  1st  and  2d,  which  an- 
ciently were  but  one,  says  of  himself: 
"  The  Lord  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  son, 
this  day  I  have  begotten  thee."  In  the  He- 
brew idiom  it  is  the  affectionate  vocative  to 
address  one  my  son  or  my  daughter  with- 
out any  reference  to  family  relations. 

In  all  these  biblical  passages  there  is  no 
idea  of  emanation  otherwise  than  the  ema- 
nation of  the  human  race  from  the  Creator. 
The  terms  son  and  father  are  used  figura- 
tively to  express  the  intimate  relation  of 
God  to  His  image,  the  human  being,  or  to 
Israel,  His  chosen  people,  or  to  King  Solo- 
mon, who  should  build  the  temple.  It  is 
intended  to  express  the  fathership  of  God 
and  the  sonship  of  man  in  their  mutual  re- 
lations, in  contradistinction  of  the  pagan 
conception  of  arbitrary,  capricious  and  fate- 
ridden  gods  and  men.  But  the  Christian 
conception  of  the  "  Son  of  God  "  is  entirely 
different.  It  means  direct  and  real  emana- 


CHRISTIANITY.  177 

tion  from  the  deity.  Mary  conceived  di- 
rectly of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hence  the  issue 
is  spirit  of  God's  spirit  and  matter  of  God's 
matter,  and  Jesus,  mind  and  matter,  is  the 
"Son  of  God,"  as  David  was  the  son  of 
Jesse,  or  Solomon  was  the  son  of  David. 
This  conception  is  so  entirely  anti-Hebrew, 
so  repugnant  to  Jewish  theories  of  the 
Deity,  and  so  contrary  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  its  ancient  ex- 
pounders, that  it  is  plainly  impossible  to 
find  any  foothold  for  it  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  or  in  the  Jewish  traditions.  Hence 
neither  the  Ebionites  and  the  Nazarenes, 
nor  the  Hebrew  apostles  and  Jesus  himself 
could  ever  have  thought  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  Therefore  the  Hebrew  apos- 
tles must  not  be  supposed  to  have  ad- 
vanced any  new  theolog3\  Jesus,  like 
the  prophet  Ezekiel,  is  reported  to  have 
called  himself  "  Son  of  Man,"  which  signi- 
fies the  human  being  without  any  title;  it 
means  a  "  Scion  of  Adam."  If  he  had  sup- 
posed himself  to  be  the  son  of  God  and 
God  himself,  it  must  have  been  his  duty, 
in  honor  of  truth,  to  announce  himself  as 
such  in  plain  and  unmistakable  terms,  as 
every -where  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  God  pro- 
claims himself,  "  I  am  Jehovah."  There- 
fore all  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the 
Acts,  previous  to  the  advent  of  Paul, 
wherein  Jesus  is  called  the  "  Son  of  God," 
can  be  spurious  only,  since  neither  Jesus 
nor  his  apostles,  disciples  and  followers 
among  the  Jews  could  ever  have  entertained 


178  ORIGIN  OF 

a  conception   so  foreign  and  repugnant  to 

the  Jewish  mind.* 

The  sons  of  the  gods  are  so  numerous  in 
the  Pantheons  of  all  Heathens,  and  their 
ideas  of  deity  were  so  crudely  pantheistic, 
so  diametrically  opposed  to  the  spirituality 
of  the  Hebrew  theories,  that  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  account  for  the  "Son  of  God " 
among  Gentile  Christians.  The  sons  of 
Saturn  us,  Jupiter,  Apollo  and  Mercury 
alone  are  numerous  and  popular  enough 
to  inform  us  where  that  idea  originated. 
The  nature  and  fate  of  Aesculapius,  the 
son  of  Apollo,  are  so  similar  to  those  of 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  that  the  authors 
must  have  seen  the  Metamorphosis  of  Ovid, 
and  imitated  the  "  Ergo  ubi  fatidicos  con- 
cepti  mente  furores,"  &c.  Lib.  2,  lin.  640. 
One  conversant  with  the  Gospel  story,  can 

*The  parable  of  the  man  who  plantexJ  a  vineyard, 
and  let  it  out  to  a  husbandman,  which  the  three  sy- 
noptics narrate  as  having  been  said  by  Jesus  in  the 
temple  a  lew  days  before  his  crucifixion,  can  not  be 
accepted  as  authentic,  not  only  because  the  whole 
story  of  his  stay  and  conversation  in  Jerusalem  is 
narrated  altogether  differently  by  John  who  must 
have  seen  and  discredited  the  statements  of  the 
synoptics ;  but  also  because  Jesus  speaks  of  himself 
as  being  the  Son  of  God,  an  idea  which  he  never  en- 
tertained of  himself.  Besides  the  narrative  betrays 
itself  as  being  fictitious.  The  parable  is  plain,  it 
says  that  the  glory  of  Israel  shall  pass  over  to  the 
Romans,  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  destroyed  and  the 
pe9plebe  dispersed.  This  certainly  could  have  been 
written  only  by  one  who  saw  Israel  dispersed,  the 
temple  destroyed,  and  the  Romans  embrace  Chris- 
tianity. Jesus  never  had  an  idea  that  his  doctrine 
should  spread  beyond  the  circle  of  the  Jews.  Not- 
withstanding the  plain  words  of  the  parable  the 
priests  and  elders  are  represented  as  being  such  fools 
as  not  having  understood  him.  It  is  all  so  childish 
that  one  with  very  little  critical  taste  can  see  that 
this  parable,  being  an  imitation  of  Isaiah  v,  was 
written  by  somebody  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  temple,  to  flatter  the  Romans,  and 
elevate  Jesus  to  the  pagan  dignity  of  the  Son  of  God. 


CHRISTIANITY.  170 

not  possibly  read  the  drama  "  Prometheus 
Bound,"  written  by  the  skillful  hand  of 
Aeschylus,  or  Potter's  translation  thereof, 
without  being  instantly  struck  with  the 
similarity  of  the  two,  Jesus  and  Prome- 
theus. Both  "divine  sufferers  "  were  "  both 
God  and  man."  There  can  be  no  question 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  "  Son  of  God  "  among 
the  Gentile  Christians ;  the  only  question 
can  be,  why  Paul  admitted  this  error.  \Ve 
will  explain  this  when  treating  on  Paul. 

Therefore  no  new  theology  must  be  sought 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  If  they  met  on  the 
porch  of  Solomon  or  in  the  temple,  they 
certainly  had  110  intention  to  pray  to  any 
one  being  but  the  very  JEHOVAH,  the  One, 
Eternal,  Omnipresent  and  Infinite  God,  as 
taught  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  as 
worshiped  by  all  Israel.  All  the  additions 
to  the  strictly  Unitarian  doctrine  are  of 
pagan  origin. 

The  first  article  of  faith  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed  must  have  concerned  the  Messiah, 
and  if  ever  couched  in   writing,  it  must 
have  read  somewhat  to  this  effect : 
ART.  I. — The  Messiah  has  come.    Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  the  Messiah.    He  was  cruci- 
fied, but  he  resurrected  from  the  dead  and 
lives  now.    He  nil1,  re-appear  on  earth  to 
restore  the  throne  of  David  and  establish 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
With  the  exception  of  the   crucifixion, 
resurrection  and  second  advent,  the  accept- 
ance   of  which    circumstances    enforced, 
these  conceptions  are  purely  Jewish;  hence 


180  ORIGIN  OF 

it  is  within  the  compass  of  probability  that 
the  apostles  should  have  entertained  them. 
MESSIAH,  Hebrew  Mashiach,  Greek  Chris- 
tos.  is  a  noun  derived  from  the  verb  mash- 
ach,  "to  anoint,"  and  signifies  one  who  is 
anointed.  The  high  priest  having  been 
anointed  is  called  Ha-kohen  Ha-mashiach, 
"The  anointed  priest,"  (Lcvit.  iv,  3;  v, 
16.)  The  king  of  Israel  who  was  anointed 
before  mounting  the  throne  was  also  called 
Mashiach  or  Messiah  (I.  Samuel  ii,  10,  35 ; 
xii,  3,  5;  xv,  6.)  David  called  Saul,  in  his 
absence,  the  Messiah  of  the  Lord,  (I. 
Samuel  xxiv,  7,  11;  xxvi,  9,  11,  23;  II. 
Samuel  i,  14,  16.)  Thus,  on  the  authority 
of  David,  we  know  that  Saul,  who  was  by 
no  means  a  very  good  man,  was  the  Mes- 
siah of  the  Lord,  simply  because  he  was 
the  king  of  Israel.  Abishai  called  David 
the  Messiah  of  the  Lord  (II.  Samuel  xix, 
22,)  and  the  author  of  Samuel  speaks  of 
David  as  the  Messiah  of  the  God  of  Jacob. 
(Ibid,  xxiii,  1.)  Solomon  called  himself 
the  Messiah  in  Psalm  ii,  2;  so  did  David 
call  himself  in  Psalm  xviii,  51;  xx,  7; 
xxviii,  8.  In  Psalm  105,  15,  and  I.  Chro- 
nicles xvi,  22,  the  Messiahs  are  mentioned 
in  the  plural  number,  "Ye  shall  not  touch 
my  Messiahs,  and  ye  shall  not  afflict  my 
prophets,"  as  God's  rebuke  to  kings  and 
nations  not  to  maltreat  Israel.  Not  only 
tke  Hebrew  high  priests  and  kings  were 
called  the  Lord's  Messiahs,  "but  also  the 
pagan  king  C3rrus  was  called  so  by  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  to 


CHRISTXNITY.  181 

his  Messiah  Cyrus."  (Isaiah  xlv,  1.)  la 
the  authorized  English  versions,  the  trans- 
lators did  not  render  those  terms  Messiah 
or  Christ,  as  it  ought  to  be  ;  they  retained 
this  distinction  for  Jesus,  and  rendered 
these  terms  always  "  the  anointed  one," 
which  is  a  mere  circumscription  of  Christ 
or  Messiah.  It  signifies  the  same. 

Thus  we  know  that  the  high  priests,  Saul, 
David,  Solomon,  and  the  other  kings  of 
the  Hebrew  people  were  Christs  or  Mes- 
siahs. The  Hebrew  Scriptures  mention 
nowhere  any  Christ  or  Messiah  who  should, 
at  some  future  day,  redeem  Isratl  or  any 
other  people.  The  word  Christ  or  Messiah 
is  not  made  use  of  in  any  of  the  so-called 
messianic  passages  of  the  Bible.  The  re- 
demption of  Israel,  the  re-elevation  of  the 
Davidian  dynasty,  and  the  final  and  uni- 
versal triumph  of  truth,  are  frequently 
predicted  by  the  prophets ;  but  these  three 
distinct  events  stand  in  no  necessary  con- 
nection with  each  other,  and  in  no  case  the 
Christ  or  Messiah  is  mentioned.  Hence, 
whatever  exp<;  ctations,  hopes  and  concep- 
tions the  ancient  Hebrews  may  have  as- 
sociated with  the  Messiah,  his  person,  his 
offices  or  his  successes,  this  much  is  sure, 
that  neither  can  legitimately  be  traced  back 
to  the  biblical  sources.  In  fact  there  is  no 
testimony  on  record  to  prove  that  the  He- 
brews previous  to  Herod  I  at  any  time  ex- 
pected a  Messiah,  or  believed  that  one 
should  come.  On  the  contrary,  the  entire 
silence  of  all  sources  on  this  subject,  from 


182  ORIGIN  OF 

Ezra  to  Herod  I,  affords  no  slight  evidence 
that  they  believed  not  in  the  coming  of  a 
Messiah.  Paul,  and  after  him  John  the 
Evangelist,  and  the  other  prominent  Gen- 
tile Christians,  understood  well  that  the 
Messiah  argument  of  the  older  apostles  in 
favor  of  Jesus  amounted  to  nothing,  and 
he  discarded  it  almost  entirely  and  adopted 
the  "  Son  of  God." 

However,  during  the  reign  of  Herod  I,  it 
appears,  the  messianic  ideas  sprung  up 
and  took  deep  root  among  all  classes  of 
people,  the  aristocracy  and  the  friends  of 
Rome  excepted.  The  origination  of  that 
belief  and  hope  among  the  Hebrews  at  that 
particular  period  was  quite  natural.  They 
saw  their  independence  vanish,  their  liber- 
ties destroyed,  their  ancient  rights  disre- 
garded, their  sacred  laws  violated,  their 
best  men  slain  or  their  property  confiscated. 
They  saw  themselves  helplessly  prostrated 
at  the  feet  of  a  heartless  despot,  who  was 
a  foreigner,  the  son  of  a  hated  man,  and 
the  agent  of  Rome,  a  terrible  and  bloody 
spouse,  father  and  friend,  in  whom  none 
could  trust,  who  killed  king  andhighpriest, 
wife  and  children.  In  such  a  state  of 
misery  and  utter  prostration,  it  is  quite 
natural  that  a  people  with  that  boundless 
confidence  in  its  laws  and  institutions 
should  expect  some  supernatural  redemp- 
tion and  sudden  assistance  from  on  high. 
So  the  Hebrews  began  to  expect  a  redeem- 
ing Messiah  who  should  make  an  end  to 
their  political  misery  and  helplessness,  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  183 

restore  the  ancient  order  of  things.  Where- 
ever  a  people  harbors  such  hopes,  persons 
apparently  corresponding  thereto  will 
surely  appear  on  the  stage  of  public  life. 

During  the  lifetime  of  Herod  the  silence 
of  the  grave  reigned,  terror  hushed  the  en- 
raged hearts.  A  false  report  of  his  death 
had  already  emboldened  two  patriots,  Ju- 
das, the  son  of  Saripheus,  and  Matthias, 
the  son  of  Margalothus,  to  inspire  their 
pupils,  to  tear  down  the  golden  eagle  from 
the  temple.  It  was  too  soon,  Judas  and 
Matthias  with  many  of  their  followers  per- 
ished in  the  flames.  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii,  4.) 
These  were  the  first  Messiahs  of  that  age. 
When  death  released  the  Hebrew  nation  of 
the  execrable  tyrant,  Herod,  he  was 
scarcely  buried,  when  the  flame  of  rebellion 
bursted  forth  in  ail  parts  of  the  country. 
The  people,  instead  of  mourning  over  the 
death  of  Herod,  as  the  court  wanted  it,  la- 
mented over  the  loss  of  Judas  and  Matthias. 
The  son  of  Herod,  Archelaus,  could  not 
pacify  the  people,  and  like  so  many  other 
bloody  despots,  he  sent  his  hirelings  against 
his  people,  and  on  the  feast  of  Passover 
3,000  of  the  patriots  were  slain  in  and  about 
the  temple.  This  could  not  diminish,  it 
could  only  increase  and  intensify  the  mes- 
sianic hopes. 

Archelaus  and  the  whole  royal  family 
after  this  fete  left  Jerusalem,  where  they 
could  not  feel  secure,  and  he  went  to  Rome 
to  find  support  there.  This  was  the  signal 
to  a  national  revolt,  against  which  the 


184  OllIGIN  OF 

avaricious  Sabinus  and  Varus  fought  with 
the  entire  force  of  Rome  in  Syria  and  what- 
ever armies  he  could  obtain  there  from  the 
petty  rulers.  The  nation  was  enraged,  but 
it  was  not  organized,  and  defeat  was  cer- 
tain. A  number  of  Messiahs  sprung  up  in 
different  parts  of  the  country.  Josephus 
mentions  only  a  few  of  them— Judas,  the 
son  of  Eeekias  ;  Simon,  a  slave  of  Herod  ; 
and  Athronges.  He  mentions  not  even  the 
chief  leaders.  Varus  discomfitted  the  em- 
bittered people,  thousands  of  them  were 
slain,  their  embassadors  to  Rome  com- 
plained in  vain,  Archelaus  was  placed  on 
the  throne  of  Judea,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Herodian  kingdom  was  divided  among  his 
other  two  sons  Philip  and  Antipas.  The 
nation  bled  from  a  thousand  wounds  and 
kept  the  peace  for  ten  years,  till  Archelaus 
was  banished  to  Vienna,  and  Judea  was 
reduced  to  a  Roman  province  without  any 
cause  on  the  part  of  the  people.  This  was 
the  signal  for  another  rebellion. 

Cyrenius,  the  Governor  of  Syria,  had 
come,  with  him  Coponius,  the  first  procur- 
ator of  Judea,  the  census  and  the  taxation, 
and  the  just  indignation  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  Joazar,  the  son  of  Botheus,  their 
high  priest,  persuaded  them  to  yield  and 
bear,  as  resistance  appeared  to  be  madness 
and  self-destruction.  But  there  was  another 
Messiah,  Judas  of  Galilee,  an  enthusiast, 
with  whom  prudence,  precaution,  utility 
and  policy  had  little  weight ;  he  yielded  to 
the  impulses  of  just  indignation,  love  of  hide- 


CHRISTIANITY.  185 

pendence,  and  faithful  adherence  to  God's 
laws,  and  marshalled  the  people  to  a  revolt 
against  Rome.  This  Judas  of  Galilee,  it 
appears,  was  the  actual  precursor  of  the 
messianic  speculations,  from  which  Chris- 
tianity originated.  This  Judas  was  a  truly 
Jewish  patriot.  He  opposed  the  taxation 
as  "  an  introduction  to  slavery,"  because 
with  the  taxation  the  annexation  of  Judea 
to  Rome,  as  a  province  thereof,  was  identi- 
cal. Judas  said  his  people  "  were  cowards, 
if  they  would  endure  to  pay  a  tax  to  the 
Romans,  and  would,  after  God,  submit  to 
mortal  men  as  their  lords."  "  And  the  na- 
tion was  infected  with  this  doctrine  to  an 
incredible  degree."* 

This  Judas  with  his  associate  Saddauk, 
to  whose  doctrines  Josephus  ascribes  all 
the  misfortunes  which  befell  the  Hebrew 
people,  by  their  obstinate  resistance  to  Ro- 
man aggression  and  Roman  laws,  by  their 
love  of  liberty  and  independence  and  their 
attachment  to  the  laws  of  their  country, 
have  done  the  same  thing  precisely  as  the 
Maccabees  did  in  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphaues.  They  expressed  the  sentiments 
of  all  the  patriots  in  Judea :  No  lord  be- 
sides God  and  no  law  besides  Israel's.  The 
taxation  and  annexation  of  Judea  was  the 
turning  point  in  history;  from  this  day 
down  to  the  fall  of  Bethar  and  the  death  of 
Barcochba  the  messianic  ideas  were  fixed, 

*Compare  Josephus  Antiquities,  Book  xviii,  chap, 
i,  sec.  1,6;  Book  xx,  chap,  y,  sec.  2;  Wars,  Book  ii, 
chap,  viii,  sec.  1 ;  chap,  xvii,  sec.  8. 

13 


186  ORIGIN  OF 

and  one  Messiah  after  the  other  sprung  up. 
The  Messiah  must  shake  off  the  foreign 
yoke,  must  restore  the  laws  of  Israel,  the 
throne  of  David,  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
which  were  identical  terms.  Numerous 
were  the  Messiahs  who  undertook  this 
great  task,  among  them  also  three  sons  of 
this  Judas  of  Galilee,  thousands  of  Jewish 
patriots  were  crucified ;  but  in  vain  was  all 
the  precious  blood  shed,  in  vain  were  all 
those  heroic  and  death  defying  combats, 
the  nation  was  enfeebled  and  demoralized 
after  every  defeat  from  the  gigantic  and 
uncompromising  Rome  with  her  bloody, 
avaricious  and  treacherous  procurators. 
The  enthusiastic  patriots,  it  is  true,  re- 
mained faithful  to  the  last.  They  adhered 
to  their  principles  with  an  unparalleled 
tenacity  and  an  admirable  self-denial. 
Still  the  prudent  politicians,  like  Josephus 
and  his  compatriots,  the  rich  men,  the  men 
in  power  by  Roman  appointment  and  those 
greedy  after  it.  could  only  cling  to  Rome, 
and  hope  for  better  times.  But  also  the 
men  of  sober  reflection  might  have  seen 
that  submission  to  Rome  was,  though  time 
serving,  still  the  best  policy  to  save  the 
country.  Thus  from  the  day  of  the  taxa- 
tion and  annexation,  there  were  actually 
two  great  political  parties  in  Judea,  the 
submissionists  and  the  patriots.  The  pa- 
triots, notwithstanding  all  the  reverses  they 
suffered,  held  out  and  clung  to  the  hope 
that  a  Messiah  must  come  to  redeem  the 
people.  The  weaker  they  grew,  the  more 


CHRISTIANITY.  187 

miracles  they  expected  from  on  high,  to  be 
wrought  by  or  for  the  Messiah. 

The  patriotism  of  the  ancient  Hebrews 
was  so  invincible,  because  it  had  a  relig- 
ious basis  resting  on  pure  understanding. 
There  were  the  great  religious  and  moral 
verities  which,  for  centuries,  had  been  the 
birthright  of  the  people  that,  in  all  these 
things,  could  look  down  upon  the  Greek 
with  scorn  or  pity.  There  was  the  faith  of 
all  good  men,  that  truth  must  triumph  at 
last,  and  justice  must  prevail.  There  were 
the  great  promises  of  the  prophets,  point- 
ing to  a  glorious  and  happy  future.  There 
was  plenty  of  strong  nutriment  to  patriot- 
ism. With  that  firm  faith  in  their  cause, 
which  was  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice, 
they  could  not  think  of  discomfiture. 
Therefore,  as  their  disasters  and  their 
misery  increased,  and  the  consciousness  of 
their  own  weakness  dawned  forcibly  upon 
them,  in  the  same  ratio  their  faith  in  mira- 
cles and  a  supernatural  Messiah  to  save 
their  cause,  grew  and  spread  among  them  ; 
so  that  finally  any  impostor  almost  found 
credence  and  enthusiastic  followers,  not- 
withstanding the  thousands  who  were  cru- 
cified by  the  Romans. 

Still,  another  and  entirely  different  view 
of  the  subject  was  enteitained  by  others, 
and  this  was  the  separation  of  the  moral 
and  religious  verities  from  the  political 
laws  and  institutions  of  Israel,  so  that  all 
the  prophetical  promises  should  relate  only 
to  the  final  and  universal  triumph  of  truth 
13* 


188  OEIGIN  OF 

and  justice  themselves,  without  reference 
either  to  the  land  of  Palestine  or  to  its  po- 
litical laws  and  institutions.  This  was  the 
purely  religious  view  of  the  question,  while 
the  other  was  the  patriotic.  This  religious 
view  found  sufficient  grounds  in  the  pro- 
phetical books,  especially  in  that  of  the  sec- 
ond Isaiah*  who  evinces  every-where  a 
thoroughly  cosmopolitan  spirit. 

Let  us  read  some  of  those  passages.  The 
first  Isaiah  (ii,  2)  and  his  older  cotempo- 
rary,  Micah  (iv,  1),  quote  and  expound  a 
more  ancient  piophetical  text,  which  reads 
thus :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  future 
days|  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's 
house  shall  be  firmly  established  on  the  top 
of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted 
abo\re  the  hills;  and  unto  it  shall  flow  all 
the  nations.  And  the  multitude  of  nations 
shall  go  and  say,  Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up 
to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house 
of  the  God  of  Jacob ;  that  He  may  teach  us 
of  His  ways,  and  wre  may  walk  in  His 
paths ;  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the 
Law,  and  the  word  of  God  out  of  Jerusa- 
lem. And  He  will  judge  among  the  na- 
tions, and  decide  for  the  multitude  of  peo- 
ple ;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords 
into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into 
pruning-knives ;  nation  shall  not  lift  up 


*  Isaiah  from  Chap.  40  to  the  end  of  the  book. 

^D^D'H  mnN2  must  not  be  rendered  "the  last 
days"  or  "  the  end  of  days."  It  signifies  literally  "  in 
the  future  of  the  days."  a  future  more  or  less  distant 
in  time.  See  Deut.  iv,  30;  Jerem.  48,  46 ;  49,39;  Eze- 
kiel  38, 1C;  Hosea  iii,  5. 


CHRISTIANITY.  189 

sword  against  nation,  and  they  shall  not 
learn  any  more  war."  Micah  adds  to  this, 
"  And  they  shall  sit  every  man  under  his 
vine,  and  under  his  fig  tree,  with  none  to 
make  them  afraid ;  for  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts  hath  spoken  it." 

Whatever  the  commentators  may  have 
written  on  this  passage,  the  unprejudiced 
reader  can  discover  in  "  the  mountain  of 
the  Lord's  house"  a  figurative  expression 
only,  representing  '*  the  law"  and  "  the 
word  of  God,"  which  was  to  go  out  from 
Zion  and  Jerusalem.  It  can  only  mean  the 
moral  and  religious  verities  made  known 
to  Israel,  after  which  the  nations  should 
eagerly  inquire,  and  which  should  bring 
about  the  blessings  of  profound  peace  to 
all.  Here  is  neither  geographical  nor  po- 
litical limitation  ;  nations,  whatever  their 
political  organizations  or  geographical  lo- 
cations may  be,  nations  and  riot  a  multi- 
tude of  people  come,  to  be  instructed  in, 
and  saved  by  the  law  and  the  word  of  God . 
Here  is  a  strict  separation  of  the  political 
laws  from  the  moral  and  religious  verities 
of  Israel,  and  the  expectation  of  the  final 
and  universal  triumph  of  the  latter,  with- 
out any  connection  with  the  former. 

With  the  second  Isaiah,  all  geographical 
and  national  limits  fall  completely  to  the 
ground,  whenever  he  speaks  of  God  and 
triumphant  truth.  So  he  says  : 

"  To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  or  shall 
I  be  equal?  saith  the  Holy  One. 

"  Lift  up  your  eyes  oti  high,  and  behold 
who  hath  created  tnese  things,  that  bringeth 


190  ORIGIN  OF 

out  their  host  by  number  :  he  calleth  them 
all  bynames,  by  the  greatness  of  his  might, 
for  that  he  is  strong  in  power ;  not  one 
faileth. 

"  Why  sayest  thou,  O  Jacob,  and  speak- 
est,  O  Israel,  My  way  is  hid  from  the  LORD, 
and  mv  judgment  is  passed  over  from  my 
God?  " 

"Hast  thou  not  known?  hast  thou  not 
heard,  that  the  everlasting  God,  the  LORD, 
the  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  faint- 
eth  not,  neither  is  weary  ?  there  is  no 
searching  of  his  understanding. 

"  He  giveth  power  to  the  faint ;  and  to 
them  that  have  no  might  he  increaseth 
strength. 

"Even  the  youths  shall  faint  and  be 
weary,  and  the  young  men  shall  utterly 
fall : 

"  rut  they  that  wait  upon  the  LORD  shall 
renew  their  strength  ;  they  shall  mount  up 
with  wings  as  eagles;  they  shall  run,  and 
not  be  weary  ;  and  they  shall  walk,  and 
not  faint." 

In  the  55th  chapter  we  are  informed,  how 
that  prophet  calls  upon  all  the  world,  to  all 
who  are  thirsty,  to  come  and  drink,  and 
eat,  and  be  satisfied  with  truth  and  grace. 
He  promises  to  all  who  should  hearken 
unto  the  Lord  a  divine  covenant  like  the 
one  made  with  David.  Then  he  concludes 
this  section  of  his  inspired  speech:  "Be- 
hold, NATION  thou  knowest  not,  thou  shalt 
call,  and  NATION  that  knew  not  thee  shall 
run  unto  thee  ;  for  the  sake  of  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  to  the  Holy  One  in  Israel,  for  He 
hath  glorified  thee." 

Let  us  read  nine  more  verses  from  Isaiah 
(lx,  1): 


CHRISTIANITY.  191 

"  Arise,  shine ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and 
the  glory  of  the  LORD  is  risen  upon  thee. 

"  For  behold,  the  darkness  shall  cover 
the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people : 
but  the  LORD  shall  arise  upon  thee,  and 
His  glory  shall  be  seen  upon  thee. 

"  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy 
light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy 
rising. 

"  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about,  and 
see:  all  they  gather  themselves  together, 
they  come  to  thee :  thy  sons  shall  come 
from  afar,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be 
nursed  at  thy  side. 

"  Then  thou  shalt  see,  and  flow  together, 
and  thine  heart  shall  fear,  and  be  enlarged; 
because  the  abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be 
converted  unto  thee,  the  forces  of  the  Gen- 
tiles shall  come  unto  thee. 

"The  multitude  of  camels  shall  cover 
thee,  the  dromedaries  of  Midian  and  Ephah; 
all  they  from  Sheba  shall  come:  they  shall 
bring  "gold  and  incense  ;  and  they  shall 
shew  forth  the  praises  of  the  LORD. 

"  All  the  flocks  of  Kedar  shall  be  gather- 
ed together  unto  thee,  the  rams  of  Nebaioth 
shall  minister  unto  thee:  they  shall  come 
up  with  acceptance  on  mine  altar,  and  I 
will  glorify  the  house  of  my  glory. 

"  Who  are  these  that  fly  as  a  cloud,  and 
as  the  doves  to  their  windows  ? 

"  Surely  the  isles  shall  wait  for  me,  and 
the  ships  of  Tarshish  first,  to  bring  thy  sons 
from  far,  their  silver  and  their  gold  with 
them,  unto  the  name  of  the  LORD  thy  God, 
and  to  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  because  He 
hath  glorified  thee." 

This  glowing  and  dazzling  description  of 
the  final  and  universal  triumph  of  relig- 
ious and  moral  truth  re-echoes  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  Zechariah  (viii,  20) : 

"  Thus  saith  thre  LORD  of  hosts  :  It  shall 


192  ORIGIN  OP 

yet  come  to  pass,  that  there  shall  come  peo- 
ple, and  the  inhabitants  of  many  cities: 

4<  And  the  inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go 
to  another,  saying,  Let  us  go  speedily  to 
pray  before  the  LORD,  and  to  seek  the  LORD 
of  hosts  ;  I  will  go  also. 

"  Yea,  many  people  and  strong  nations 
shall  come  to  seek  the  LORD  of  hosts  in  Je- 
rusalem, and  to  pray  before  the  LORD. 

"  Thus  saith  the  LORD  of  hosts :  In  those 
days  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  ten  men  shall 
take  hold,  out  of  all  languages  of  the  na- 
tions, even  shall  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of 
him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying,  We  will  go  with 
you  :  for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with 
you." 

This  and  many  similar  passages  of  the 
prophets  certainly  entitled  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  another  than  a  political  Messiah, 
with  those  who  expected  the  coming  of  a 
Messiah  at  all.  These  expectations  must 
have  been  rooted  deepest  among  the  He- 
brews who  lived  outside  of  Palestine,  and 
in  Palestine  among  the  Essenes. 

There  is  no  evidence  on  record  that  the 
Hebrews  outside  of  Palestine  believed  in 
the  coming  of  any  Messiah,  the  Helenistic 
Jews  excepted.  They  had  messianic  hopes. 
This  is  evident  from  the  Septuaginta,  where 
Genesis  xlix,  10:  "until  Shiloh  ccmeth," 
is  rendered,  "  till  he  cometh,  to  whom  it  is 
given,  and  who  is  the  expectation  of  the 
nations."  This  means  literally  a  personal 
Messiah  from  the  tribe  of  Judah.  In 
Numbers  xxiv,  7,  the  Seventy  translate 
contrary  to  the  text :  "  A  man  will  go  forth 
from  his  seed  who  will  reign  over  many 
nations,  and  his  kingdom  shall  be  higher 


CHRISTIANITY.  193 

than  Gog's."  Verse  24  (ibid.)  is  thus  pref- 
aced, "  And  beholding  Gog,"  then  the 
translation  follows,  "  He  will  go  forth  from 
the  Kitites,  who  will  maltreat  Assiw,  and 
maltreat  the  Hebrews,  and  then  be  himself 
destroyed." 

The  Sybillian  books,  written  by  Egyptian 
Jews  in  the  century  before  the  Christian 
era,  contain  many  expressions  of  Mes- 
sianic hopes.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
the  apocryphal  book,  called  "  The  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,"  which  was  also  written  in 
Egypt.  Still  it  appears  that  also  among 
the  Egyptian  Jews,  the  most  prominent 
Helenists,  the  messianic  hopes  wero  by  no 
means  general.  Eusebius  and  Clemens 
preserved  numerous  fragments  of  Egypt- 
ian Jewish  writers  before  Philo.  T^re  are 
the  fragments  of  Aristobule,*  of  Eupole- 
mos,f  of  Artapanus,^:  of  Demetrius,^  of 
AristeasJ  of  Cleodeuioo,**  of  Polyhistor, 
Alexander  and  others,  besides  the  frag- 
ments of  the  poets  Ezekiel,  Philo  the  elder, 
and  Theodotus.  Still  in  neither  of  them 
are  the  messianic  hopes  mentioned.  Philo, 
the  philosopher,  the  cotemporary  of  the 
Apostles,  is  the  first  and  only  Greek  writer 

*Easeb.  praep.  eyang.  7,14;  8,  10;  9,6;  13,  12.  De 
Rossi  in  Meor  Euayim  3,  lu,  communicates  that  the 
MSS  of  a  large  work  by  Aristobule  was  in  the  library 
of  Florence,  and  another  copy  in  the  Benedictiii 
library  of  Mantua.  One  of  that  order  told  him  the 
book:  was  better  than  any  one  of  the  Philo's.  Noth- 
ing has  been  heard  thereof. 

t  About  140  B.  C.  Eusebius  praep.  evang.  9, 17;  26, 
30  to  34  and  39,  to  which  comp.  1,  Maccab.  8, 17. 

I  Eus  praep.  evang.  9, 18;  23,  27. 

g  Ibid.  9,  21 ;  Clemens,  Strom.  1,  21 ;  about  147  B.  C. 

1  Eus.  praep.  evang.  9,  25. 

**Ibid.  9, 19  and  20;  Joseph.  Ant.  1,15, 1. 


194  ORIGIN  OP 

who  mentions  the  Messiah.  He  has  his 
own  views  on  the  subject.  His  Messiah 
partakes  somewhat  of  an  angelic  nature, 
to  be  visible  to  the  pious  ones  only.  He  is 
expected  to  lead  back  home  all  the  Jews 
from  the  Greek  and  the  barbarian  coun- 
tries. The  Hebrew  people  will  be  perfect 
in  good  morals  and  in  obedience  to  God's 
laws;  the  fountains  of  grace  shall  then 
flow  as  freely  as  in  olden  times,  the  ancient 
cities  shall  rise  from  their  ruins,  the  wilder- 
ness shall  be  changed  into  fertile  land,  and 
the  prayers  of  the  living  shall  have  the 
power  to  revive  the  dead.tt 

This  fantastic  viewr  of  the  Messiah  is 
purely  Philonic,  in  whose  opulent  imagi- 
nation facts,  laws  and  persons  of  the  Bible 
were  |§ansformed  to  allegoric  idoals,  to 
teach  or  at  least  suggest  Platonic  doctrines. 
Whatever  the  general  opinion  on  this  sub- 
ject may  have  been,  the  Jews  of  Egypt, 
Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Rome,  could 
hardly  expect  a  political  Messiah.  Living, 
as  they  did  in  the  various  countries  of  their 
birth,  in  a  very  agreeable  condition,  poli- 
tically and  socially  (with  some  exceptions 
in  later  periods,)  and  speaking  the  Greek 
and  the  Latin  as  their  native  tongues,  they 
could  feel  no  particular  patriotism  for  Pal- 
estine, or  else  they  must  have  migrated  to 
that  land,  as  nothing  was  in  their  way  to 
prevent  them  from  returning  to  their  an- 

tt  Philo,  De  excrationibus,  M.  II,  435,  4.36.  Comp. 
Graetz  Geschichte,  Vol.  3,  p.  259 ;  Herzfeld  Geschichte, 
Vol.  2,  p.  473,  and  sequ. 


CHRISTIANITY.  195 

cient  home.  Therefore  the  messianic  hopes 
of  the  Helenistic  Jews  outside  of  Palestine 
must  have  been  limited  to  the  universal 
and  final  triumph  of  the  religious  and 
moral  verities  of  Israel.  In  connection 
therewith,  they  may  have  imagined  a  wise 
or  prophetical  scion  of  the  house  of  David, 
who  should  bring  about  this  desired  tri- 
umph. In  view  of  all  the  fragments  men- 
tioned above,  the  works  of  Philo  and 
Josephus,  the  Septuaginta  and  the  Apocry- 
phies,  all  of  which  had  chiefly  and  avow- 
edly the  intention  to  instruct  the  Greeks  in 
the  religious  and  moral  tenets  of  Israel ; 
again,  in  view  of  the  rapid  progress  which 
Jewish  ideas  made  among  the  Greeks,  as 
we  shall  see  thereafter :  it  is  quite  natural 
that  the  Jews  of  those  regions  and  of  those 
days  expected  to  see  the  triumph  of  their 
precepts  in  the  same  ratio  as  they  saw  the 
political  power  of  Israel  decline.  Further- 
more, the  messianic  hopes  crowded  around 
a  son  of  David,  being  cherished  prejudices 
with  them,  it  is  quite  natural  that  these 
two  ideas  were  blended  into  one,  and  a 
Messiah  was  expected  to  accomplish  the 
final  and  universal  triumph  of  truth. 

The  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Essenes  in 
Palestine  and  Syria  undoubtedly  cor- 
responded with  those  of  the  Eg37ptian  Jews, 
as  their  founder  must  have  been  an 
Egyptian  Jew  who  was  acquainted  with 
the  Pythagorean  order,  and  about  200  B. 
C.  came  to  Palestine.  The  Therapeuts  of 
Egypt  and  elsewhere  were  in  name  and 


196  ORIGIN  OF 

essence  an  imitation  of  the  Essenes, 
founded  about  170  B.  C.,  although  they  dif- 
fered from  the  former  in  many  points. 
There  are  no  positive  traces  of  their  mes- 
sianic views  left  either  by  Josephus  or 
Philo,  or  even  by  the  Talmud  ;  yet  in  con- 
sideration of  their  numerous  similarities 
to  the  Egyptian  Jews,  it  is  but  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  they  entertained  messianic 
hopes  similar  to  the  latter.  Besides  there 
are  facts  on  record  from  them,  which  show 
that  they  could  not  think  of  a  political 
Messiah.  In  the  first  place  they  attached 
no  importance  whatsoever  to  earthly  pos- 
sessions or  carnal  enjoyments,  hence  they 
could  be  no  patriots  like  those  who  are  at- 
tached with  fervency  to  the  soil  where  they 
are  born,  which  their  fathers  and  forefathers 
cultivated,  and  every  inch  of  which  has 
endeared  itself  to  them.  In  the  second 
place  the  Essenes  sought  no  public  offices, 
and  accepted  none,  the  exceptions  are  very 
rare.  Such  men  can  feel  no  particular 
patriotism  for  a  land  which  they  would 
neither  defend  in  time  of  war  nor  govern 
in  time  of  peace.  In  the  third  place  their 
entire  tendency  was  to  despise  this  life  and 
to  prepare  the  soul  for  the  life  hereafter, 
hence  they  could  not  possibly  care  much 
about  their  country.  In  the  fourth  place  they 
would  not  even  recognize  the  Jewish  polity 
and  made  no  sacrifices  in  the  temple.  The 
Messiah  of  the  Essenes,  therefore,  could 
not  have  any  political  complexion  ;  they 
must  rather  have  imagined  him  to  be  an 


CHRISTIANITY.  197 

ethereal,  semi-angelic,  contemplative  and 
ascetic  prophet,  as  all  the  Essenes  were, 
who  should  effect  the  final  triumph  of 
truth  over  error,  and  virtue  over  corrup- 
tion. 

This  is  the  very  Messiah  of  the  Apostles. 
The  type  was  taken  from  the  Egyptian 
Jews  and  the  Essenes,  and  the  character  of 
Jesus  was  described  and  proclaimed  to 
correspond  therewith. 

Whether  Jesus  himself  claimed  the  mes- 
sianic dignity,  or  whether  his  followers, 
after  his  death,  proclaimed  him  as  such, 
must  be  ascertained  from  the  following 
statements.  Luke  tells  us  the  following 
story : 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  was  alone 
praying,  his  disciples  were  with  him  ;  and 
he  asked  them,  saying,  Whom  say  the 
people  that  I  am  ? 

"  They  answering,  said,  John  the  Baptist ; 
but  some  say,  Elias ;  and  others  say,  that 
one  of  the  old  prophets  is  risen  again. 

"  He  said  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye 
that  I  am  ?  Peter  answering,  said,  The 
Christ  of  God. 

"  And  he  straitly  charged  them,  and  com- 
manded them  to  tell  no  man  that  thing. 

"  Saying,  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer 
many  things,  and  be  rejected  of  the  elders, 
and  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be  slain, 
and  be  raised  the  third  day. 

"  And  he  said  to  them  all,  If  any  man  will 
come  affer  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and 
take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow  me. 

"  For  whosoever  will  save  his  life,  shall 
lose  it :  but  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for 
my  sake,  the  same  shall  save  it. 

"For  what  is  a  man  advantaged,  if  he 


198  ORIGIN  OF 

gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  himself,  or 
be  cast  away? 

"  For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me, 
and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of 
man  be  ashamed,  when  he  shall  come  in 
his  own  glory,  and  in  his  Father's,  and  of 
the  holy  angels. 

"  But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth,  there  be  some 
standing  here  which  shall  not  taste  of 
death  till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 

According  to  this  story  the  disciples 
during  his  lifetime  already  took  him  to  be 
the  Messiah,  only  he  did  not  wish  to  be 
proclaimed  as  such,  because  he  was  afraid 
to  excite  against  himself  the  ire  of  the 
elders,  priests  and  scribes.  But  the  story 
contains  many  traits  which  make  it  spuri- 
ous. The  reply  of  some  disciples,  "  One  of 
the  old  prophets  is  risen  again,"  presup- 
poses the  Pythagorean  belief  in  the  trans- 
migration of  the  soul.  This  was  the  belief 
of  cabalistic  Jews  long  after  Jesus  ;  at  that 
time  it  was  entirely  foreign  to  them.  This 
reply  points  to  a  time  when  Christianity 
was  already  adopted  by  Greek  heathens, 
many  of  whom  believed  in  this  doctrine. 
Besides,  he  speaks  in  verse  23  of  his  fol- 
lowers, that  each  should  "  take  up  his  cross 
daily  and  follow  me."  This  points  dis- 
tinctly to  a  time  after  the  crucifixion,  and 
even  long  after  it,  when  the  cross,  the 
Egyptian  symbol  of  immortality,  had  been- 
adopted  by  the  Christians  as  the  sj^mbol  of 
the  new  religion.  Jesus  could  not  possibly 
speak  to  his  disciples  of  the  cross  with  the 
least  hope  of  being  understood,  even  if  he 
knew  prophetically  his  final  fate. 


CHRISTIANITY.  199 

But  there  are  other  and  more  essential 
points,  which  render  this  story  spurious. 
Matthew  (xvi,  13)  tells  the  same  story  ;  but, 
according  to  this  statement,  Jesus  made  a 
reply  altogether  different  from  that  of 
Luke: 

"And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona : 
for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven. 

"  And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church  :  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it. 

"  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose 
on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

Here  Peter  is  made  the  head  of  the 
Church,  a  fact  which  Luke,  who  places 
Paul  and  James  at  the  head,  entirely  ig- 
nores. The  leadership  of  Peter  could  not 
suit  at  £  11  the  narrator  of  "The  Acts." 
But  Luke  must  have  seen  the  statement  of 
Matthew,  still  lie  had  the  boldness  to  ignore 
the  principal  portion  thereof.  This  he  could 
do  only,  if  he  considered  the  whole  story 
spurious,  gotten  up  after  the  crucifixion,  to 
assign  higher  authority  to  the  claims  ot 
Peter. 

Mark  (viii,  27)  also  tells  the  same  story 
in  substance,  without  the  words  of  Jesus 
to  Peter,  according  to  Matthew,  or  his  ad- 
dress to  the  disciples,  according  to  Luke. 
John  knew  nothing  of  the  story.  The 
three*  Synoptics  agree  that  Peter  proclaimed 


200  ORIGIN  OF 

Jesus  as  "being  the  Messiah,  and  he  forbid 
them  to  publish  it.  This  latter  charge  nat- 
urally suggests  the  opinion  that  the  story 
itself  is  spurious  ;  but  that  Peter,  after  the 
death  of  Jesus,  was  the  first  to  proclaim 
him  the  Messiah,  with  the  addition  that  this 
was  believed  and  stated  already  during  his 
lifetime,  but  he  interdicted  its  publication. 
This  is  also  evident  from  the  speeches 
which  the  author  of  "The  Acts,"  as  we 
have  noticed  above,  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Peter.  To  the  Israelites,  Jesus  could  be 
announced  only  and  exclusively  as  the 
Messiah,  since  they  entertained  not  the  re- 
motest notion  of  any  son  of  God. 

The  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  the 
story  of  his  stay  there  and  of  his  law  pro- 
cess before  the  Sanhcdrin  and  Pilate,  prove 
nothing  in  this  respect;  not  only  because 
Jesus  in  no  wise  compromited  himself 
as  the  Messiah,  but  also  because  the  whole 
story  was  written  long  after  the  transpira- 
tion of  the  event,  and  was  shaped  by  each 
author  according  to  his  conceptions  of  the 
matter. 

Peter  could  not  have  proclaimed  Jesus 
the  political  Messiah,  even  if  he  expected 
his  personal  return.  He  must  have  pro- 
.claimed  him,  as  the  Essenes,  the  Greek 
Jews  and  others  imagined  their  Messiah, 
the  prince  of  peace,  who  will  bring  about 
the  final  and  universal  triumph  of  religious 
and  moral  truth,  at  least  among  the  He- 
brews. We  must  differ  here  radically  from 
Lessing's  fragments  and  others  who  dis- 


CHRISTIANITY.  201 

cover  in  the  Gospel  story  a  defeated  political 
scheme.  We  can  discover  nothing  in  the 
Gospels,  Acts  or  Epistles,  that  looks  like 
political  ambition  or  political  schemes. 
Words  like  these—"  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world  ;"  or  "  Give  to  Cesar  that  which 
belongeth  to  Cesar,  and  give  to  God  that 
which  belongeth  to  God"— have  certainly 
no  political  character.  Besides,  it  is  most 
remarkable  that  during  the  last  stay  of 
Jesus  in  Jerusalem,  he  is  not  reported  to 
have  said  one  single  word  concerning  the 
political  situation  of  the  country.  He  had 
before  himself  a  nation  of  heroes  who 
struggled  desperately  against  the  tyranny 
and  usurpations  of  the  Roman  giant;  a 
nation  that  mournfully  and  despairingly 
contemplated  its  certain  downfall,  because 
it  saw  its  strength  steadily  decline  and  the 
enemy  steadfastly  advance  ;  he  had  before 
himself  a  nation  that  confidingly  hoped, 
prayed,  longed,  yearned  after  a  redeemer 
inspired  from  on  high  to  make  an  end  to 
their  misery  and  restore  the  ancient  glory 
of  Israel ;  and  he  has  not  a  word  of  en- 
couragement, not  a  word  of  consolation, 
not  a  single  word  of  advice  to  say  to  his 
afflicted  brethren.  So  none  of  the  Apostles 
— and  they  saw  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  temple — have  a  word  to  say  on  the 
subject. 

This   proves  in  the   first  place  that  the 

authors  of  the  Gospels   did  not  consider 

Jeeus  in  any  way  a  political  character.    It 

proves  in  the  second  place  that  the  whole 

14 


202  ORIGIN  OF 

account  was  written  by  Gentile  authors 
who  had  no  feeling  for  the  misery  and  woes 
of  Israel.  The  story  that  Jesus  wept  over 
Jerusalem,  being  narrated  by  one  only, 
was  certainly  invented  by  some  patriotic 
Jewish  Christian. 

The  restoration  of  the  throne  of  David 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  could  have  had 
no  political  import  with  those  who  ex- 
pected a  Messiah  for  the  exclusive  purpose 
of  accomplishing  the  final  and  universal 
triumph  of  Israel's  religious  and  moral 
verities.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  with  cer- 
tainty what  they  understood  under  the 
throne  of  David,  how  they  spiritualized  so 
earthly  a  thing  as  a  throne  is,  and  mortals 
so  frail  and  sinful  as  the  descendants  of 
David  were  in  the  time  of  their  prosperity. 
Still  if  one  reads  the  works  of  Philo  or  the 
Greek  fragments  mentioned  above,  he  will 
not  at  all  feel  astonished  that  almost  any 
thing  could  be  symbolized  and  typified  to 
denote  every  thing  imaginable,  and  any 
historical  name  or  fact  could  be  wrought 
into  an  allegory,  to  represent  whatever  the 
author  inclined  to  state.  To  the  sober  and 
analytical  reasoner  of  our  days,  the  Esse- 
nean  Messiah  and  the  throne  of  David  are 
two  incongruous  and. heterogeneous  points 
which  can  be  united  only  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  fantast.  The  philosopher,  the 
prophet,  the  prince  of  the  mind,  never  re- 
quired a  royal  pedigree  or  a  royal  claim  in 
support  of  their  mission ;  and  the  house  of 
David  wras  never  promised  any  superiority 


CHRISTIANITY.  203 

in  the  spiritual  domain  or  the  mental  pro- 
vince. Still  the  Apostles  taking  hold  upon 
a  popular  prejudice— the  expected  Messiah 
from  the  house  of  David — were  obliged  to 
reconcile  the  two  heterogeneous  missions 
of  the  king  and  the  philosopher  or  prophet, 
as  best  they  could.  The  primitive  Chris- 
tians had  to  do  a  piece  of  reconciliation 
even  worse  than  this,  in  harmonizing  the 
Jewish  Messiah  with  the  pagan  Son  of 
God ;  but  nothing  is  impossible  to  faith  and 
fancy.  The  dynastical  prerogatives  of  the 
Davidians  were  not  limited  to  the  throne  of 
Israel ;  they  were  extended  to  all  the 
thrones  of  all  potentates  and  princes. 
Their  claims  were  not  understood  to  be,  to 
rule,  to  reign,  or  to  govern,  as  one  might 
expect  of  pretenders  to  a  crown ;  they 
merely  claimed  the  spiritual  and  invisible 
dominion  by  an  invisible  and  incompre- 
hensible prince.  The  air  castles  over  which 
we  now  laugh,  are  definite  realities  in  com- 
parison to  the  typified,  symbolized  and 
spiritualized  king  and  lord  Messiah,  who 
has  not  a  spark  of  reality  in  his  character. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  a  purely  spirit- 
ual domain,  and  is  a  literal  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  D^tf  ITD^a  Malchuth  Shama- 
yim.  The  Israelites  have  a  passage  in  their 
daily  prayers,  in  that  portion  which,  it  is 
claimed,  was  composed  by  the  men  of  the 
great  synod  under  Ezra,  which  says  of  the 
heavenly  host,  "  And  all  of  them  impose 
upon  themselves  the  burden  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  even  one  from  another," 


204  ORIGIN  OP 

&c. — i.  e.  they  daily  avow  submission  to 
God  and  his  laws.  So  the  author  of  the 
Mishna/i  understood  these  terms,  when 
stating  in  regard  to  divine  worship  (Bera- 
choth  ii,  2:)  "Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Ivorchah 
said,  Why  do  we  read  the  section  of  She- 
mang  (Deut.  vi,  4  to  9)  before  the  section  of 
Vehaya  im  shamonga?  (Ibid,  xi,  13  to  22.) 
Because  one  must  accept  upon  himself  first 
the  burden  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and 
then  the  burden  of  the  commandments." 
The  first  section  mentioned  in  this  passage 
begins  thus:  "  Hear  ,Israel, God  is  our  Lord, 
God  is  One.  Thou  shalt  love  God  thy  Lord 
with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  might."  In  these  words,  ac- 
cording to  the  author  of  the  Mishnah,  one 
accepts  upon  himself  "  the  burden  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  " — i.  e.  he  expresses  his 
belief  and  his  implicit  confidence  in  the 
One  and  Almighty  God,  and  his  unlimited 
love  to  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe.  If 
this  is  the  BURDEN  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  itself 
could  signify  but  one  thing— the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  sovereignty  and  sole  do- 
minion of  God  over  all  persons  and  things 
that  were,  that  are,  and  that  will  be.  The 
claim  for  Jesus,  that  he  should  return  and 
establish  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  connec- 
tion with  the  throne  of  David,  could  signify 
only  one  thing,  viz:  that  by  his  coming, 
either  by  his  miraculous  re-appearance 
from  the  realm  of  death,  or  by  his  super- 
natural influence  upon  the  hearts,  he  should 


CHRISTIANITY.  205 

convert  all  persons  in  Israel  to  "  accept 
upon  themselves  the  burden  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  as  the  pious  did  twice 
daily  ;  and  every  one  should  truly  believe 
and  confide  in  God,  and  love  Him  with  in- 
finite love. 

Whatever  commentators  and  expounders 
of  the  Gospels  may  have  made  of  the 
words,  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  when  they 
were  uttered  by  Jesus  or  the  Apostles,  they 
could  only  be  intended  to  convey  the  ideas 
which  those  words  then  did  convey ;  and 
this  we  can  learn  only  from  the  literature 
of  that  time  and  that  people.  Then  and 
there  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  conveyed  the 
ideas  communicated  above. 

We  will  not  undertake  to  decide  whether 
the  Apostles  expected  the  immediate  re- 
turn of  Jesus,  the  re-establishment  of  the 
throne  of  David  and  the  proclamation  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  place  of  any 
other  ;  or  whether  they  expected  the  catas- 
trophe of  the  earth,  and  the  last  judgment 
day  to  be  right  on  hand  ;  or  whether  in, all 
these  matters  they  spoke  of  a  distant  future 
in  allegorical  language;  each  proposition 
has  its  proof  in  the  New  Testament,  so  that 
it  appears  very  likely  all  these  things  were 
believed  by  various  persons  in  the  apostolic 
age.  We  will  not  decide  on  these  disputed 
points,  because  they  are  immaterial  to  our 
object.  It  is  likely  enough  thai)  with  the 
visible  decline  of  Israel's  earthly  glory,  the 
expectation  of  a  revolution  in  nature  took 
hold  on  fantasts  then  as  in  our  days  ;  but 


206  ORIGIN  OF 

we  Lave  110  historical  notices  to  substan- 
tiate it. 

The  Second  Doctrine  in  the  Apostles'  Creed 
must  have  been  concerning  the  remission  of 
sins,   so  to  say,   by  the  proclamation  of  a 
general  amnesty  from  on  high. 
Sins  can  not  be  forgiven  ;  they  must  be 
removed.     The  rust  will   not    fly   off   the 
polished  steel ;  it  must  be  rubbed  off,   it 
must  be  removed.    Nature  offers  no  anal- 
ogy to  the  idea  of  the  remission  of  sins, 
without  .removing  the  cause  and  the  effect 
thereof.    God  is  just,  and  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  unjust.     The  grace  of  God,  which 
is  only  another  name  for  the  most  sublime 
manisfestation  of  divine  justice,  is  revealed 
in  human  nature  by  the  innate  ability,  to 
remove  the  cause  and  effect  of  sins,  hence 
also    sin    itself.     The  means   of  expiation 
and    atonement    are    within  every  man's 
reach. 

Still  the  prophets  who  predicted  the  re- 
turn of  the  Hebrews  from  the  Babylonian, 
exile  and  from  other  lands  of  their  disper- 
sion, and  those  prophets  who  encouraged 
the  hopeless  captives,  announced  to  them 
the  divine  messages  that  by  their  sufferings 
in  foreign  lands,  by  the  very  humiliation 
which  they  had  experienced  at  home  and 
abroad,  their  national  sins  were  expiated, 
God  had  forgiven  them,  and  they  should 
be  restored  to  their  national  glory.  So  the 
second  Isaiah  opens  his  sublime  message  : 
"  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people,  saith 


CHRISTIANITY.  207 

your  God  !  Speak  ye  to  the  heart  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  proclaim  unto  her  that  the  days 
of  her  sorrow  are  full,  that  her  iniquity  is 
atoned  for  ;  for  she  hath  received  from  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  double  for  her  sins." 
These  two  verses  contain  the  quintessence 
of  all  the  following  chapters;  they  an- 
nounce the  entire  mission  of  that  prophet. 
Once  more  he  gives  utterance  to  the  import 
of  his  mission,  and  almost  in  the  same 
strain.  He  says  : 

"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me  ; 
because  the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to 
preach  good  tidings  unto  the  meek ;  he 
hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted, 
to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and  the 
opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are 
bound  ; 

"  To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God  ; 
to  comfort  all  that  mourn  ; 

"  To  appoint  unto  them  that  mourn  in, 
Zion,  to  give  unto  them  beauty  for  ashes, 
the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  the  garment  of 
praise  for  the  spirit  of  heaviness ;  that 
they  might  be  called  Trees  of  righteous- 
ness, The  planting  of  the  Lord,  that  he 
might  be  glorified. 

"  And  they  shall  build  the  old  wastes, 
they  shall  raise  up  the  former  desolations, 
and  they  shall  repair  the  waste  cities,  the 
desolations  of  many  generations." 

The  same  words  of  consolation  and  en- 
couragement are  preserved  in  the  forty- 
fourth  chapter : 

"  Remember  these,  O  Jacob  and  Israel; 
for  thou  art  my  servant:  I  have  formed 
thee  :  thou  art  my  servant :  O  Israel,  thou 
shalt  not  be  forgotten  of  me. 

"I  have  blotted  out,  as  a  thick  cloud,  thy 


208  ORIGIN  OF 

transgressions,  and  as  a  cloud,  thy  sins: 
return  unto  me  :  for  I  have  redeemed  thee. 
"  Sing,  O  ye  heavens ;  for  the  Lord  hath 
done  it :  shout,  ye  lower  parts  of  the  earth  ; 
break  forth  into  singing,  ye  mountains,  O 
forest,  and  every  tree  therein  :  for  the  Lord 
hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and  glorified  himself 
in  Israel." 

Let  us  read  one  more  passage  from  the 
same  prophet,  in  which  he  announces  pre- 
cisely the  same  thing.  In  the  forty-third 
chapter  he  says : 

"  This  people  have  I  formed  for  myself; 
they  shew  forth  my  praise. 

"Bat  thou  hast'not  called  upon  me,  O 
Jacob  ;  but  thou  hast  been  weary  of  me,  O 
Israel. 

"  Thou  hast  not  brought  me  the  small 
cattle  of  thy  burnt-offerings;  neither  hast 
thou  honored  me  with  thy  sacrifices.  I 
have  not  caused  thee  to  serve  with  an  offer- 
ing, nor  wearied  thee  with  incense. 

"  Thou  hast  brought  me  no  sweet  cane 
with  money,  neither  hast  thou  filled  me 
with  the  fat  of  thy  sacrifices :  but  thou 
hast  made  me  to  serve  with  thy  sins,  thou 
hast  wearied  me  with  thine  iniquities. 

"  I,  even  I,  am  he  that  blotteth  out  thy 
transgressions  for  mine  own  sake,  and  will 
not  remember  thy  sins." 

All  these  passages  have  but  one  meaning. 
The  time  of  redemption  from  the  Babylo- 
nian captivity  has  come,  the  national  sins 
are  forgiven  and  the  principal  one  (idolatry) 
was  removed,  the  suffering  of  the  people 
was  the  punishment ;  now  God  is  nigh  to 
redeem,  to  lead  back  his  people  to  the  holy 
land  and  restore  it  to  its  ancient  glory. 
This  would  certainly  have  been  literally 
fulfilled  had  they  all  gone  back  and  laid  a 


CHRISTIANITY.  209 

solid  foundation  to  a  "strong  and  durable 
nationality ;  but  they  refused  to  return,  and 
so  Israel  never  reached  again  its  ancient 
national  glory. 

The  second  Isaiah  in  this  respect  only 
repeated  what  the  patriotic  Jeivmiah  had 
said  twice  before  him.  He  said  (Jeremiah 
2TXX,  10  and  11 ;  and  xlvi,  27  and  28) : 

"  Therefore  fear  thou  not,  O  my  servant 
Jacob,  saith  the  Lord  ;  neither  be  dismayed, 

0  Israel :  for  lo,  I  will  save  thee  from  afar, 
and  thy  seed   from  the  land  of  their  cap- 
tivity; and  Jacob  shall  return,  and  shall 
be  in  rest,  and  be  quiet,   and  none  shall 
make  him  afraid. 

"  For  I  am  with  thee,  saith  the  Lord,  to 
save  thee  :  though  I  make  a  full  end  of  all 
nations  whither  I  have  scattered  thee,  yet 
will  I  not  make  a  full  end  of  thee:  but  I 
will  correct  thee  in  measure,  and  will  not 
leave  thee  altogether  unpunished." 

The  same  voice  resounds  from  the  pro- 
phet Ezekiel  (Ezekiel  xi,  17  to  20) : 
"  Therefore  say,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  ; 

1  will  even  gather  you  from  the  people  and 
assemble  you  out  of  the  countries  .where 
ye  have  been  scattered,  and  I  will  give  you 
the  land  of  Israel. 

"And  they  shall  come  thither,  and  they 
shall  take  away  all  the  detestable  things 
thereof  and  all  the  abominations  thereof 
from  thence. 

"And  I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  I 
will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you ;  and  I 
will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh, 
and  will  give  them  an  heart  of  flesh  : 

"  That  they  may  walk  in  my  statutes, 
and  keep  mine  ordinances,  and  do  them  : 
and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be 
their  God." 

He  repeats  the  same  strain  of  ideas  in 


210  ORIGIN  OF 

the  thirty-sixth  chapter  in  still  more  forc- 
ible language.  The  Minor  Prophets  are 
full  of  this  very  voice  of  consolation,  and 
express  it  in  language  as  eloquent  as 
Isaiah's. 

This  is  the  pyi  rU'#  Shenath  Ratson,  "  the 
year  of  acceptance,"  the  acceptable  year, 
the  year  of  grace,  or  whatever  other  ex- 
pressions were  used  to  denote  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  the  consequent  peace  of 
the  mind.  With  the  prophets,  the  remis- 
sion of  the  national  sins  precedes  imme- 
diately the  nSlNJ  rUi?  Shenath  Gueulah, 
11  the  year  of  redemption,"  which  comes  to 
pass  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the 
national  sins.  The  evangelical  scheme 
follows  a  reversed  order,  the  redeemer 
comes  first  and  the  remission  of  sins  fol- 
lows after  his  death.  This  was  foreign  to 
the  prophets. 

The  Hebrews  of  that  age  may  have  con- 
nected with  their  messianic  hopes  also  a 
marvelous  remission  of  sins,  analogous  to 
that  predicted  by  the  prophets  to  the  Baby- 
lonian exiles.  If  they  expected  restora- 
tion to  the  ancient  splendor  and  glory  of 
Israel,  they  must  have  believed  God  would 
forget  and  forgive  all  their  national  sins. 
But  there  exists  no  positive  proof  that 
such  hopes  were  indulged  in,  or  that  such 
a  belief  was  entertained.  The  Messiahs 
mentioned  by  Josephus  "  deluded  the 
people  under  pretence  of  divine  inspira- 
tion," they  also  "  went  before  them  into 
the  wilderness  as  pretending  that  God 


CHRISTIANITY.  211 

would  there  show  them  the  signals  of  li- 
berty," he  narrates  (Wars  ii,  xiii,  3):  He 
tells  us  moreover  that  a  Messiah  came  to 
Jerusalem  from  Egypt  who  pretended  to 
be  a  prophet.  Having  succeeded  in  col- 
lecting about  him  on  Mount  Olive  thirty 
thousand  warriors,  he  pretended  that  at  his 
command  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  would 
fall  clown,  and  he  would  thus  procure 
them  an  entrance  into  the  city  through 
these  walls  when  they  were  fallen  down. 
( Antiqu.  xx,  viii,  6.)  But  nowhere  is-  men- 
tion made  of  the  remission  of  sins.  The 
last  and  most  remarkable  Messiah  of  that 
eventful  age,  Simon  Barcochba,  wrought 
no  miracles,  made  no  pretension  at  divine 
inspiration,  and  proclaimed  no  remission 
of  sins. 

In  the  Mishnah,  the  oldest  Hebrew  docu- 
ment after  the  Bible,  the  messianic  hopes* 
are  not  mentioned  at  all.  Tne  expectation 
of  a  coming  Messiah  is  noticed  but  once  by 
Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos,  a  cotempo- 
rary  of  the  Apostles  (See  SOTAH  conclu- 
sion.) But  there  is  no  mention  made  of 
the  remission  of  sins  ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  predicted  by  that  sage  that  universal 
depravity  will  precede  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.* 

*  Among  the  various  vices  and  crimes  which  he 
predicts  is  also  this  niroS  13 Tin  HlD^m-  which 
according  to  Tosefmh  Yom  'Tab  must  be  rendered; 
"And  the  government  'of  Rome)  will  turn  Christ- 
ian "  before  the  Messiah  can  come.  This  appears 
correct,  forit  is  said  elsewhere  of  the  same  Kabbi.that 
the  Apostle  James  caught  him  over  niJ^DS'  If  the 
word  there  signifies  Christianity,  why  not  also  in  this 
passage  ? 


212  OBIGIN  OF 

Jesus  himself  did  not  proclaim  any  re- 
mission of  sins,  if  we  are  to  believe  the 
synoptics;  John  the  Baptist  did.  Accord- 
ing to  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  it  is  Peter, 
he  who  proclaimed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
also  proclaims  the  redemption  in  connec- 
tion with  the  remission  of  sins  through 
Jesus,  viz:  by  repentance  and  by  being 
baptized  in  his  name.f 

It  is  quite  natural  that  Peter,  having 
proclaimed  the  crucified  one  the  Messiah, 
must  also  have  announced  the  remission 
of  sins  through  him,  on  account  of  the 
prophetical  passages  which  connect  the  re- 
demption from  the  Babylonian  captivity 
with  the  remission  of  the  national  sins  ; 
then,  on  account  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
which  was  expected,  in  which  only  the 
pure  and  pious  ones  could  claim  citizen- 
ship; then,  on  account  of  the  prevalent 
""expectations  among  Helenists  and  Essenes, 
that  the  Messiah  should  bring  about  the 
final  triumph  of  truth  and  virtue;  and, 
lastly,  because  he  could  not  offer  any  thing 
else  to  the  believers.  Therefore  it  is  likely 
that  the  Apostles  adopted  as  an  article  of 
their  creed  the  remission  of  sins  to  those 
who  repent  and  are  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Jesus.  It  is  with  this  article  as  with  the 
Messiah.  Neither  can  be  legitimately 
traced  back  to  the  biblical  sources,  while 
each  has  its  foothold  in  peculiar  stand- 
points of  scriptural  exegese,  and  in  the 
then  domineering  prejudices. 

t  Acts  ii, 38;  iv,  12;  v,Sl. 


CHRISTIANITY.  213 

Paul,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  did  away 
with  repentance  as  a  condition  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  made  faith  the  entire 
condition  (Romans  iii.)  Therefore  the  16th 
verse  in  the  last  chapter  of  Mark,  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned,"  was  not  said  by  Jesus  or  his 
Apostles  ;  it  was  said  by  one  of  Paul's  dis- 
ciples. 

The  non-patriotic  Hebrews  might  have 
accredited  all  these  allegations  of  Peter  and 
his  co-laborers  in  behalf  of  their  master; 
but  the  afflicted  and  suffering  Messiah,  the 
crucified  Redeemer,  the  vanquished  Savior, 
these  were  notions  too  foreign  and  eccentric 
to  the  Jewish  mind  and  too  contrary  to  the 
ideal  of  a  Messiah  that  many  Jews  could 
possibly  have  adopted  it. 

The  Messiah  which  they  supposed  to  havA 
discovered  in  the  Bible  was  certainly  an 
oriental  ideal  of  lofty  personage,  appear- 
ance, strength,  address  and  energy,  a  vic- 
torious and  dictating  prince  of  peace,  a 
luminous  representative  of  the  royal  dy- 
nasty of  David,  decorated  with  all  the 
shining  merits,  distinguishing  graces,  and 
supernatural  virtues  and  powers  of  an  ideal 
prince,  prophet  and  priest. 

The  Jesus  of  the  Gospel  is  of  itself  an 
occidental  cast  of  character,  something 
like  an  ideal  Roman  priest  ;  the  crucified 
Jesus  has  lost  all  his  charms  to  the  oriental 
fantasy,  and  becomes  an  occidental  phan- 
tom. The  decline  and  weakness  of  the 


214  OFxIGIN    OF 

Greco-Roman  spirit,  the  effeminated  ener- 
gies and  the  eccentric  morals,  both  mor- 
bidly sensitive,  are  visible  in  the  entire 
delineation  of  character,  and  reach  their 
climax  in  the  catastrophe.  Jews  could  not 
imagine  such  a  drama,  least  of  all  could 
the  hearty  mountaineers  and  fishermen  of 
Galilee  conceive  such  a  Pantheon  phantom 
of  a  sickly  age.  The  inflexible  and  dia- 
mond energies  of  Moses,  the  heroism  of 
Joshua  and  David,  the  lofty  imagination  of 
the  royal  bard,  the  wisdom  of  the  gifted  Sol- 
omon, the  burning  and  glowing  eloquence 
of  Isaiah,  the  valor  and  the  successes  of 
the  lion-like  Maccabees  formed  the  proto- 
types of  the  Jewish  ideal  of  the  Messiah. 
The  crucified  Jesus  could  not  have  the 
least  charm  to  the  Hebrews  of  Palestine, 
and  could  not  expect  any  number  of  ad- 
pairers. 

Therefore,  while  it  is  certain  that  it  took 
a  century,  at  least,  of  intimacy  with  the 
Greco-Roman  sentiments  and  notions,  after 
the  death  of  Jesus,  before  that  cast  of  char- 
acter which  we  meet  in  the  Gospels  could 
have  been  produced  j  it  undoubtedly  took 
many  years  after  the  crucifixion  before 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles  could  have 
formed  and  brought  to  maturity  in  them- 
selves the  idea  that  their  master,  although 
vanquished  and  crucified,  still  was  the 
Messiah,  and  that  he  resurrected  from 
death  to  finish  his  work  of  redemption. 
They  must  have  bestowed  much  attention 
to  the  Greco-Roman  sentiments  of  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  215 

Helenists,  and  upon  the  Scriptures  for 
years,  before  they  succeeded  in  convincing 
themselves  of  an  executed  Messiah.  But 
it  was  all  in  vain.  When  they  came  with 
this  their  conviction  before  the  Hebrew 
people,  there  were  very  few,  if  any,  to  be- 
lieve them.  The  idea  was  toq  foreign  to 
them. 

Still  more  foreign  and  still  less  acceptable 
must  h'^ve  been  to  them  the  idea  of  a  cru- 
cified redeemer  and  savior  which  Peter 
must  have  advanced,  as  the  author  of 
"The  Acts"  actually  maintains.  Peter 
was  obliged  to  give  a  good  reason  why  his 
Messiah  was  crucified,  and  he  could  only 
say,  because  he  came  to  establish  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  he  must  effect  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  this  he  could  only  do  by 
giving  himself  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  all,  so 
that  by  his  death  atonement  is  made  for 
sins. 

This  argument,  however,  could  not  prove 
successful  among  Jews  who  loathed  the 
very  idea  of  sacrificing  human  victims,  as 
being  one  of  the  crimes  of  their  heathen 
neighbors.  They  must  have  argued,  if  it  is 
loathsome  to  us,  must  it  not  be  more  so  to 
God  to  see  an  innocent  person  victimized? 
If  all  Israel  knew  and  knows  that  God  ab- 
hors human  victims  upon  His  altar,  how 
can  Peter  tell  us  now  that  God  finds  delight 
in  it,  so  much  so  that  our  sins  should  be 
forgiven  ?  Besides,  if  it  is  correct  what  the 
evangelists  have  Jesus  say  :  "  If  you  have 
sinned,  why  should  a  victim  die?"  and 


216  ORIGIN  OF 

this  certainly  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Essenes,  the  question  fell  with  much  more 
weight  on  Peter's  doctrine,  "If  we  have 
sinned,  why  should  any  innocent  man  die? 
or  what  good  will  it  do  us,  ho\v  can  it  im- 
prove our  hearts,  if  an  innocent  man  was 
killed?" 

Besides  all  this  the  Jews  could  point  to 
Scriptures  where  the  remission  of  sins, 
connected  with  the  redemption  from  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  appears  uncondi- 
tional after  the  nation  had  received  suffi- 
cient punishment  for  its  sins.  No  victim 
was  required.  The  misdeeds  were  punished, 
the  sins  forgiven.  Then  they  could  point 
to  passages  like  this:  "Ye  are  my  wit- 
nesses, saith  the  Lord,  and  my  servant 
whom  I  have  chosen,  that  ye  may  know 
and  believe  me,  and  understand  that  I  am 
-He:  before  rne  there  was  no  deity  formed, 
neither  shall  there  be  after  me.  I,  EVEN  I, 
JEHOVAH,  AND  BESIDES  ME  NO  SAVIOR.  I 
have  declared,  and  I  have  saved,  and  I 
have  caused  to  hear,  and  there  is  no  strange 
god  among  you  ;  and  ye  are  my  witnesses, 
saith  the  Lord,  and  I  am  the  Lord."  (Isaiah 
xliii,  10  to  12.)  "  Israel  is  saved  in  Jehovah, 
an  everlasting  salvation ;  ye  shall  not  be 
ashamed  nor  confounded  in  all  eternity." 
(Ibid,  xlv,  17.)*  At  the  close  of  the  same 
chapter  the  prophet  says : 

'•' Tell  ye,  and  bring  them  near;  yea,  let 
them  take  counsel  together  :  who  hath  de- 

*  This  is  an  imitation  of  the  words  of  Moses.    Deut. 
xxxiv,  29. 


CHRISTIANITY.  217 

dared  this  from  ancient  time?  who  hath 
told  it  from  that  time  ?  have  not  I  the 
Lord?  and  there  is  no  God  else  beside  me  ; 
a  just  God  and  a  Savior;  there  is  none  be- 
side me. 

u  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the 
ends  of  the  earth :  for  I  am  God,  and  there 
is  none  else. 

"  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word  is 
gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness, 
and  shall  not  return,  That  unco  me  every 
knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear. 

"Surely,  shall  one  say,  In  the  Lord  have 
I  righteousness  and  strength  :  even  to  him 
shall  men  come  ;  and  all  that  are  incensed 
against  him  shall  be  ashamed. 

"  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel 
be  justified,  and  shall  glory." 

Then  the  same  prophet  says :  "  Our  Re- 
deemer, the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  his  name,  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel."  (Isaiah  xlvii,  4.) 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found, 
call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near  :  Let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unright- 
eous man  his  thoughts  ;  and  let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy 
upon  him,  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will 
abundantly  pardon."  (Ibid.  Ixv,  6  and  7.) 
The  prophet  Ezekiel  is  most  explicit  on  this 
topic.  He  says  : 

"Yet  say  ye,  Why?  doth  not  the  son 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father?  When  the 
son  hath  done  that  which  is  lawful  and 
right,  and  hath  kept  all  my  statutes,  and 
hath  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live. 

"  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The 
son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father, 
neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of 
the  son:  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous 
shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of 
the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him. 
15 


218  ORIGIN  OF 

"  -But  if  the  wicked  will  turn  from  all  his 
sins  that  he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all 
my  statutes,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful 
and  right,  he  shall  surely  live,  he  shall  not 
die. 

"All  his  transgressions  that  he  hath 
committed,  they  shall  not  be  mentioned 
unto  him  :  in  his  righteousness  that  he  hath 
done  he  shall  live. 

"Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the 
wicked  should  die?  saith  the  Lord  God: 
and  not  that  he  should  return  from  his 
ways,  and  live? 

"  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  away 
from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  in- 
iquity, and  doeth  according  to  all  the 
abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth, 
shall  he  live?  All  his  righteousness  that 
he  hath  done  shall  not  be  mentioned :  in 
his  trespass  that  he  bath  trespassed,  and 
in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them  shall 
he  die. 

"  Yet  ye  say,  The  way  of  the  Lord  is  not 
equal.  Hear  now,  O  house  of  Israel ;  Is 
not  my  way  equal  ?  are  not  your  ways  un- 
equal? 

"  When  a  righteous  man  turneth  away 
from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  in- 
iquity, and  dieth  in  them  ;  for  his  iniquity 
that  he  hath  done,  shall  he  die. 

"  Again,  when  the  wicked  man  turneth 
away  from  his  wickedness  that  he  hath 
committed,  and  doeth  that  which  is  lawful 
and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive. 

"  Because  he  considereth  and  turneth 
away  from  all  his  transgressions  that  he 
hath  committed,  he  shall  surely  live,  he 
shall  not  die. 

"  Yet  saith  the  house  of  Israel,  The  way 
of  the  Lord  is  not  equal.  O  house  of  Israel, 
are  not  my  ways  equal  ?  are  not  your  ways 
unequal  ? 

"  Therefore,  I  will  judge  you,  O  house  of 
Israel,  every  one  according  to  his  ways, 
saith  the  Lord  God.  Repent,  and  turn 


CHRISTIANITY.  219 

yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions; 
so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  niin. 

"  Cast  away  irom  all  your  transgressions, 
whereby  ye  have  transgressed :  and  make 
you  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit :  for  why 
will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ? 

"  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of 
him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God  :  where- 
fore turn  yourselves,  and  live  ye." 

All  inferences,  however  ingenious  and 
striking,  fall  to  the  ground  before  these 
positive  statements  of  the  prophets,  which 
admit  of  no  redeemer,  no  savior,  no  atone- 
ment and  no  expiation  of  sins  by  either 
the  blood  of  animals  or  much  less  by  the 
blood  of  a  human  victim.  Therefore  the 
Jews,  acquainted  with  their  sacred  litera- 
ture, could  not  possibly  consent  to  the  doc- 
trine of  a  crucified  redeemer,  a  savior  who 
suffered  for  them,  whose  blood  had  made 
atonement  for  their  sins,  or  a  Messiah  who 
suffered  and  died  to  fulfill  his  mission. 
This  is  the  very  rock  on  which  the  new 
religion  was  shipwrecked  among  the  Jews.* 

In  this  dilemma  Peter  and  his  co-laborers 
were  forced  to  the  adoplion  of  a  third  doc- 
trine in  their  creed : 

The  Messiah  was  crucified,  and  thus  taken 
away  temporarily  from  them  that  they  re- 
pent their  sins,  and  be  prepared  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  when  he  shall  come 
back  to  establish  it  for  those  who  believe  in 
him.  Then  he  will  appear  in  all  the  glory 
which  the  Jews  expected  of  their  Messiah. 

*  The   fifty-third  chapter  of    Isaiah    and   similar 
Scriptural  passages  will  be  fully  explained  in  the  ap-  < 

pendix. 

15* 


220  ORIGIN  OF 

This  belief  based  upon  no  sort  of  argu- 
ment must  have  appeared  quite  fantastical 
to  the  Hebrews.  Therefore  it  took  no  root 
among  them,  and  the  Christian  congrega- 
tion was  very  small  in  Jerusalem  as  late 
even  as  70  A.  C. 

Here  another  question  rises :  Of  what 
should  they  repent?  What  is  a  sin?  These 
important  questions  are  not  answered 
either  in  the  Gospels  or  in  "  The  Acts." 
Still  it  is  evident  If  people  were  admon- 
ished and  expected  to  repent,  if  they  were 
promised  remission  of  sins,  the  first  thing 
necessary  for  them  to  know  was,  which 
deed,  thought  or  feeling  is  properly  called 
a  sin.  It  must  not  be  advanced :  Jesus 
and  his  apostles,or  rather  their  biographers, 
thought  this  requires  no  definition,  for 
whatever  a  man's  conscience  tells  him  to 
be  wrong,  this  and  this  only  is  a  sin.  Had 
this  been  the  case,  they  must  have  plainly 
stated  it,  as  it  was  a  doctrine  entirely  new 
in  Israel,  the  people  of  the  book ;  but  no 
such  statement  was  made.  Besides,  if  the 
conscience  alone  was  to  decide  who  was  a 
sinner  and  who  was  none,  then  those  who 
crucified  Jesus,  and  those  who  persecuted 
the  apostles  and  slew  the  martyrs,  were  no 
sinners,  for  their  consciences  told  them 
certainly  they  were  righteous. 

Therefore  we  are  naturally  left  to  believe, 
Jesus  and  the  apostles  believed  in  the  Law 
of  Moses  as  the  rest  of  Israelites  did.  This 
made  it  entirely  superfluous  for  them  to 
define  the  nature  of  sin,  as  the  Law  does  it 


CHRISTIANITY.  221 

in  every  particular  case.  Only  where  they 
went  beyond  the  letter  of  the  Law,  was  it 
Eecessary  (o  make  such  statements  as  are 
preserved  in  the  sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Neither  the  apostles  nor  the  rest  of  the  He- 
brews could  imagine  a  kingdom  of  heaven 
or  the  restoration  of  the  Davidian  throne 
without  the  Law  of  Moses.  Obedience  to 
the  Law  was  for  them  identical  with  obe- 
dience to  God. 

There  is,  indeed,  ample  material  on  record 
to  prove  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples  before 
the  advent  of  Paul  considered  the  Law  to 
be  divine  and  unalterable,  and  salvation 
dependent  on  obedience  to  it.  They  con- 
sidered the  motives  of  obedience  .para- 
mount to  the  observance  of  the  Law,  and 
held  mere  observance  without  good  mo- 
tives to  be  hypocrisy,  as  all  the  prophets 
and  every  good  man  after  them  did.  This 
is  true,  although  it  was  not  new. 

Matthew  informs  us  (v,  17)  that  Jesus 
said  in  imitation  of  Isaiah  (Iv,  10  and  11,) 
"  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law,  or  the  prophets ;  I  am  not  come  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfill.  For  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one 
jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever 
shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the 
same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  For  I  say  unto  you,  That  ex- 


222  ORIGIN  OF 

cept  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  Luke  also  records  a  sinfilar 
expression  of  Jesus  (xvi,  17):  "And  it  is 
easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than 
one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail." 

These  passages  are  positive  and  directly 
to  the  point.  The  very  fact  that  they  are 
an  imitation  of  the  words  of  Isaiah  fixes 
their  meaning  beyond  a  doubt,  even  if 
verse  19  in  Matthew  could  be  explained  to 
mean  any  thing  but  the  strict  observance 
of  the  Mosaic  law  as  the  condition  to  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

We  know  that  this  is  an  old  passage, 
adopted  most  likely  from  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews;  for  it  is  quoted  almost  literally 
in  the  Talmud  in  connection  with  Rabbi 
Gamliel  of  Jarnnia,  who  succeeded  Rabbi 
Johanan  ben  Saccai  as  prince  of  the  San- 
hedrin.  74  A.  C.  (See  Sabbath  116  a.) 

After  this  direct  and  emphatic  declara- 
tion no  more  proof  is  actually  necessary  to 
establish  this  point.  Nevertheless  we  will 
refer  to  some  others. 

The  argument  of  Jesus  about  the  Sab- 
bath is  recorded  by  the  three  synoptics  so 
much  alike  that  little  doubt  can  be  left  as 
to  its  origin  from  the  older  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews.*  It  is  narrated  there  that  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  going  on  Sabbath  through 
a  field,  plucked  ears  of  corn  to  satisfy  their 

*  Comp.  Matthew  xii,  1 ;  Mark  ii,  23 ;  Luke  vi,  l. 


CHRISTIANITY.  223 

hunger.  The  Pharisees  taking  offence  on 
this,  accused  the  disciples  before  Jesus  of 
having  violated  the  Sabbath.  Here  it  was 
proper  for  Jesus  to  reply  that  the  Law  was 
abrogated,  and  one  day  was  as  good  as 
another,  as  Paul  has  it.  But  he  did  no 
such  a  thing  ;  he  argued  his  case  like  a  sa- 
gacious and  casuistical  rabbi,  proving  that 
his  disciples  had  done  no  wrong.  He  first 
refers  to  David  and  his  followers,  who, 
when  hungry,  ate  of  the  holy  shew  bread, 
which,  according  to  the  Law,  should  be 
eaten  by  the  priests  only,  to  prove  that 
necessity  knows  of  no  law ;  and  then  he 
quotes  the  fact  that  the  priests  in  the 
temple  violate  the  Sabbath  by  making  fire, 
burning  sacrifices,  &c.,  to  prove  while  one 
is  engaged  in  the  .performance  of  divine 
duties — as  he  and  his  disciples  supposed  to 
be — he  may  dispense  with  minor  laws  if 
necessity  require  it.  This  leads  him  to 
the  dou  le  conclusion,  not  only  that  his 
disciples  were  guiltless,  because  the  Son  of 
Man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath,  he  and 
they  being  engaged  in  the  discharge  of 
solemn  duties ;  but  also  "  The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath," hence  none  need  hunger  on  this  day 
on  account  of  any  law. 

Thus  we  know  that  Jesus  taught  his  dis- 
ciples the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  ac- 
cording to  the  Law,  precisely  as  he  broke 
the  bread  and  pronounced  the  benediction 
over  the  cup  of  wine  according  even  to 
rabbinical  law,  and  ate  of  the  paschal 


224  ORIGIN  OF 

lamb  as  all  Israelites  did.  According  to 
Matthew  (xxiii,  1,)  Jesus  went  even  so  far 
in  his  respect  before  the  Law  that  he  said 
to  the  multitude  "and  to  his  disciples": 
"The  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in 
Moses'  seat :  All  therefore  whatsoever  they 
bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and  do  :  but 
do  not  ye  after  their  works :  for  they  say 
and  do  not."  Now  these  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees who  occupy  the  seat  of  Moses  are  the 
Sanhedrin,  as  we  have  stated  before.  They 
were  the  highest  authority  not  only  in  all 
matters  in  regard  to  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
but  they  were  also  the  "  pillars  of  the  tra- 
ditional laws,"  as  they  were  called,  and 
gave  decisions  according  to  the  so-called 
rabbinical  laws.  If  Jesus  said  this,  he  re- 
spected not  only  the  biblical  laws,  but  also 
the  rabbinical  traditions,  as  THE  authority 
which  must  be  obeyed  in  order  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  We  shall  see  here- 
after, however,  that  this  must  be  under- 
stoou  with  certain  qualifications  in  regard 
to  the  rabbis.  The  very  fact  that  John 
mentions  neither  of  these  incidents,  say- 
ings and  arguments,  proves  that  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  and  the  Paulites  among  the 
Hebrews  ignored  them,  because  they  prove 
that  Jesus  did  teach  strict  observance  of 
the  Law,  which  they  considered  abrogated 
and  superceded  by  faith. 

The  only  anecdote  in  the  Gospels  which 
would  show  that  Jesus  disregarded  the 
Law,  is  the  one  of  the  adulteress,  which 
John  (viii,  1)  narrates  thus :  Jesus  teaching 


CHRISTIANITY.  225 

the  people  in  the  temple,  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  presented  to  him  a  woman  ac- 
cused of  adultery,  and  put  the  question  to 
him,  "  Now  Moses  in  the  law  commanded 
us  that  such  should  be  stoned :  but  what 
sayestthou?"  To  this  Jesus  answers  :  "He 
that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let  him  first 
cast  a  stone  at  her."  This  reply  so  discom- 
fits the  accusers  that  they  leave  the  woman 
and  the  temple.  Jesus  then  addresses  the 
culprit  and  tells  her,  since  the  accusers  left 
and  there  is  none  to  condemn  her,  "  Neither 
do  I  condemn  thee;  go  and  sin  no  more." 
In  this  case  the  Law  is  entirely  set  aside  by 
an  ill-becoming  mercy  to  a  criminal. 

The  fact,  however,  that  John  only  records 
this  anecdote,  renders  it  spurious  on  ac- 
count of  his  outspoken  anti-law  tendencies. 
Aside  of  this  consideration,  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  piece  was  and  is  much  doubted 
by  some  of  the  best  critics  who  suppose  it 
was  not  written  by  John  the  Evangelist, 
not  only  because  its  style  differs  from  other 
compositions  of  John,  but  also  because  it 
was  missing  in  some  of  the  most  ancient 
manuscripts  of  the  Gospel.  "  Ecclesias- 
tical writers  of  the  second-half  of  the 
fourth  century,"  says  Mr.  Wislicenus, 
"  make  mention  of  this  story,  but  state 
that  it  was  omitted  in  many  old  manu- 
scripts." 

If  we  were  ignorant  of  those  facts,  we 
would  know,  after  all,  that  the  anecdote  be- 
fore us  is  fictitious.  The  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees bring  an  adulteress  not  before  the 


226  ORIGIN  OF 

lower  Sanhedrin  of  twenty-three  judges, 
where,  according  to  the  laws,  they  must 
have  accused  her ;  they  present  her  and 
her  case  to  one  man  who  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  matter.  This  can  not  be  true, 
because  it  is  a  downright  violation  of  the 
criminal  law.  We  can  not  for  a  moment 
suppose  that  those  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
were  the  judges  themselves  who  added 
Jesus  to  their  number,  which  the  law  al- 
lows to  hear  his  judgment  in  the  case ;  be- 
cause they  could  not  have  run  away,  out 
of  the  hall  of  judgment,  without  giving  a 
verdict,  as  the  anecdote  represents  them  to 
have  done;  the  law  obliged  them  to  render 
final  judgment.  Again,  in  this  anecdote 
it  is  supposed  all  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
were  guilty  of  adultery,  therefore  the  reply 
of  Jesus  put  them  so  to  shame  that  they 
ran  off.  This,  again,  is  impossible;  a 
whole  class  of  people  or  a  considerable 
number  thereof  can  not  be  guilty  of  the 
same  crime.  If  all  those  men  were  so  con- 
scientious that  the  answer  of  Jesus  had 
the  effect  to  put  them  to  shame,  then  they 
were  none  of  the  worst  sinners,  and  might 
have  well  undertaken  to  give  a  verdict. 
But  the  worst  part  of  the  anecdote  is,  that 
it  sets  forth  a  sinner  must  not  condemn  a 
criminal,  nor  testify  against  him  ;  hence 
all  men  being  sinners,  nobody  must  testify 
against  a  criminal,  and  none  be  his  judge. 
Again,  the  criminal  must  not  be  punished 
at  all,  nor  must  he  promise  to  lead  a  holier 
life  afterward ;  it  is  enough  plainly  to  tell 


CHRISTIANITY.  227 

him,  "  Go  and  sin  no  more."  No  man 
with  any  .respect  for  justice  and  the  safety 
of  society  can  utter  such  nugatory  doc- 
trines ;  certainly  nobody  will  admit  that 
Jesus  did  so,  who  was  a  Jew  and  a  disciple 
of  the  Law. 

A  peculiar  document  from  the  apostolic 
age  is,  "The  General  Epistle  of  James." 
This  is  scarcely  savored  with  Christian 
doctrines,  it  is  Jewish  all  over.  He  waits 
for  the  "  coming  of  the  Lord,"  and  admon- 
ishes his  brethren,  "  Be  ye  also  patient  ; 
establish  your  hearts ;  for  the  coming  of 
the  Lord  draweth  nigh,"  (v,  8);  but  in  all 
other  respects  he  is  perfectly  Jewish.  He 
adheres  scrupulously  to  the  Law  of  Moses, 
and  states  "  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the 
whole  law,  and  yet  offend  in  one  point,  he 
is  guilty  of  all,"  (ii,  10.)  He  argues  against 
the  theories  of  Paul.  "  What  doeth  it  profit , 
my  brethren,"  he  states,  "  though  a  man 
say  he  has  faith,  and  have  no  works  ?  Can 
faith  save  him  ?  If  a  brother  or  sister  be 
naked,  and  destitute  of  daily  food,  and  one 
of  you  say  unto  them,  Depart  in  peace,  be 
ye  warmed  and  filled  ;  notwithstanding  ye 
give  them  not  those  things  which  are  need- 
ful to  the  body  ;  what  doth  it  profit  ?  Even 
so  faith,  if  it  hath  not  works,  is  dead,  being 
alone.  Yea,  a  man  may  say,  Thou  hast 
faith,  and  I  have  works,  and  I  will  show 
thee  my  faith  by  my  works.  Thou  believest 
that  there  is  one  God ;  thou  doest  well  ; 
the  devils  also  believe  and  tremble.  But 


228  ORIGIN  OF 

wilt  thou  know,   O   vain   man,   that  faith 

without  works  is  (lead." 

Every  word  of  this  pointed  admonition 
was  directed  against  Paul.  Here  then  we 
have  a  prominent  apostle,  who  knows  of 
but  one  God  and  no  divinity  of  Christ,  who 
adheres  to  the  Law  and  to  works  and  not 
to  faith.  He  is  the  full  expression  of  the 
apostles  and  disciples  of  Jesus. 

The  rabbis  of  the  apostolic  age,  we  have 
mentioned  before,  stood  in  close  connection 
with  the  Apostle  James.  They  call  him  in 
the  Talmud,  "  Jacob,  the  man  from  Kephar- 
Sekania,"  "One  of  the  pupils  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth."  His  home  Kephar-Sekania  is 
identical  with  Kephar-Samiah,  a  town  in 
the  vicinity  of  Nazareth.  The  rabbis  never 
treated  him  like  a  man  who  abandoned  the 
Law ;  on  the  contrary,  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben 
Hyrcanos,  it  is  narrated,  was  so  far  misled 
by  him  into  the  tenets  of  Christianity,  that, 
under  the  edict  of  the  Emperor  Trajan, 
(Pliny  the  younger's  epist.  x,  96,)  the  rabbi 
was  arrested  and  accused  of  siding  with 
the  Christians.* 

This  Rabbi  Eliezerf  was  a  strict,  law 
abiding,  traditional  Pharisee,  the  pupil  of 
Rabbi  Jochanan  ben  Saccai,and  the  founder 
of  the  rabbinical  college  at  Lydda,  in  the 
southern  part  of  Judea.  He  was  one  of 
the  admirers  of  the  system  of  Shammai, 
clinging  tenaciously  to  the  rabbinical  tra- 


*  See  Aboda  Sara  16  and  17 ;  Midrash  Cohelpth  i ; 
Toscphta,  Chulin  ii;  compare  Graetz's  Gnosticismus 
p.  24  note. 

t  See  Graetz's  Geschichte,  Vol.  4,  chap.  3. 


ClIIlISTIANITY.  229 

ditions  in  preference  to  all  other  methods 
of  expounding  the  Law  of  Moses,  so  much 
so  that  he  maintained,  "  I  never  said  any 
thing  which  I  had  not  heard  of  my  teach- 
ers." His  close  connection  with  the  Apostle 
James  is  of  itself  an  evidence  that  the  lat- 
ter also  was  a  law  abiding  Pharisee,  who 
believed  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  pupil 
does  in  his  master. 

The  question  which  the  apostle  asked  the 
rabbi,  and  which,  it  is  maintained,  brought 
him  in  trouble,  is  also  characteristic.  It 
reads  literally  thus:  "I  remember  that 
once  when  I  walked  over  the  mart  of  Sep- 
poris  I  met  one  of  the  pupils  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  Jacob— a  man  of  Kephar- 
Sekaniah — is  his  name ;  and  he  said  to  me  : 
It  is  written  in  your  Law  (Deuter.  xxiii, 
19,)  '  Thou  shalt  not  bring  the  hire  of  a 
harlot,  <fec.,  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  ' — how  about  making  for  snch  money 
a  privy  chamber  for  the  highpriest?  I 
made  no  reply ;  but  then  he  continued  : 
Thus  Jesus,  the  Nazarene,  taught  me,  It 
came  from  an  unclean  place  and  goes  to  an 
unclean  place."  Without  believing  for  a 
moment  that  this  was  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion between  the  rabbi  and  the  apostle, 
it  rather  looks  like  mystification ;  still  we 
can  not  help  seeing  that  the  author  of  that 
passage  considered  Jesus  as  a  teacher  and 
expounder  of  the  Law,  and  not  as  one  who 
rejected  it.  The  rabbis  of  the  Talmud 
never  say  of  Jesus  or  his  apostles  that  they 
rejected  the  Law.  They  call  Jesus  T 


230  ORIGIN  OF 


rnpot?,  "The  pupil  of  Rabbi 
Joshua  ben  Perachia  who  spoiled  his  dish," 
i.  e.  who  defamed  his  school  (Sanhedrin 
103  a.)  They  accused  him,  (the  above-named 
Rabbi  Eliezer  did,)  of  having  brought 
necromancy  from  Egypt  OSabbath  104  &,) 
and  because  he  believed  in  it,  they  called 
him  a  fool.  (Ibid.)  D'N^D  pKl  rrn  HDl^ 
D^liyn  m  7VSO  )  they  maintained  that  he 
rejected  the  laws  of  the  rabbis  and  charac- 
terized his  disciples  in  these  words  :  "Who 
are  the  disciples  of  Jesus?  Those  who  re- 
fuse the  authority  of  the  rabbis."  (JRashi 
to  Chagigah  5  fr.)  But  they  never  say  that 
he  or  his  pupils  rejected  the  Law  of  Moses. 
This  is  an  undeniable  evidence  that  the 
primitive  Christians,  the  apostles  and  the 
first  congregation,  the  Ebionites  and  the 
Nazarenes,  adhered  to  the  Law  of  Moses, 
or  else  their  opponents,  the  rabbis,  would 
certainly  have  preferred  this  grave  charge 
against  them. 

The  disputes  of  Paul  with  the  apostles  on 
this  topic,  as  chronicled  by  himself  and 
also  by  the  author  of  the  "The  Acts," 
ought  to  be  mentioned  here  as  proper  points 
in  support  of  our  position  ;  but  we  can  only 
allude  to  them,  as  we  must  treat  on  them 
more  at  length  in  another  chapter  ;  espe- 
cially as  we  believe  our  assertion  suffi- 
ciently proved. 

Mosheim  admits  that  the  church  was 
troubled  with  early  disputes  concerning 
the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  Jewish  rites. 


CHRISTIANITY.  231 

"  Those,  however,  -who  considered  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Mosaic  rites  as  necessary 
to  salvation  had  not,  in  this  first  century, 
proceeded  so  far  as  to  break  off  all  com- 
munion with  such  as  differed  with  them  in 
this  matter.  Therefore  they  were  still  re- 
garded as  brethren,  though  of  the  weaker 
sort.  But  when,  after  the  second  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  under  the  Emperor 
Adrian,  these  zealots  for  the  Jewish  rites 
deserted  the  ordinary  assemblies  of  Chris- 
tians, and  established  separate  meetings 
among  themselves,  then  they  were  num- 
bered with  those  sects  who  had  departed 
from  the  pure  doctrine  of  Christ." 

Mosheim  only  forgets  to  add  that  these 
were  the  original  Christians,  the  real  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  who  were 
overruled  by  the  Gentile  Christians  whose 
religion  came  from  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
They  were  called  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes, 
as  sects,  by  Gentile  Christians,  but  in  Pales- 
tine and  among  the  Hebrews  they  had 
these  and  no  other  names  right  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  they  were  never  known  to 
the  rabbis  as  Christians.  In  this  point, 
then,  the  apostles  had  nothing  to  add  to 
their  creed.  They  believed  in  one  God  and 
in  the  divinity  and  obligatory  character  of 
the  Law  of  Moses,  as  all  other  Israelites 
did. 

The  main  point  which  the  apostles  urged 
in  opposition  to  the  Judaism  of  those  da3-s 
was  their  rejection  of  the  rabbinical  author- 
ity. Jesus,  as  has  been  stated  already, 


232  ORIGIN  or 

recommended  obedience  to  the  Sanbedrin 
as  well  as  to  Cesar ;  he  recognized  both 
the  authority  of  the  body  legally  consti- 
tuted and  of  the  existing  power.  He  was 
no  rebel  and  preached  no  rebellion,  al- 
though he  was  crucified  like  others  who 
counteracted  the  authority  of  Rome.  The 
apostles,  however,  not  only  disobeyed  the 
Sanhedrin,  but  constituted  a  Sanhedrin 
among  themselves,  a  Sanhedrin  of  seventy 
members,  over  which  Peter  and  John,  and 
afterward  James,  presided.  They  claimed 
all  the  attributes,  and  exercised  the  pre- 
rogatives of  that  body.  They  held  com- 
munication with  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  as  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  did  with  the 
"Bath  kol;"  like  them  they  claimed  the 
knowledge  of  all  the  languages  and  the  do- 
minion over  the  evil  spirits  ;  and  like  them 
they  enacted  and  abrogated  laws.  Thus 
the  apostles  formed  an  opposition  Sanhed- 
rin to  all  their  religious  intents  and  pur- 
poses. The  Hebrews  were  not  used,  in 
matters  of  religion,  to  submit  to  the  author- 
ity of  one  ;  they  looked  up  to  the  Beth  Din 
Haggadol, "  the  Great  House  of  Judgment," 
for  decisions  in  all  matters  of  law  or  polity, 
ethics  or  religion.  Therefore  when  Peter 
and  his  co-laborers  had  returned  from  Ga- 
lilee with  the  intention  of  reforming  the 
religion  of  Israel,  it  was  necessary  to  or- 
ganize a  new  Sanhedrin  to  give  authority 
to  their  doctrines. 

During  the  lifetime  of  Jesus  to  a  time 
shortly  before    his    crucifixion,    although 


CHRISTIANITY.  233 

Judea  had  been  a  Roman  province  for 
many  years,  the  Sanhedrin  may  have  pos- 
sessed all  its  prerogatives  ;  for  it  was  only 
forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  and  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  that  the 
right  over  life  and  death  was  taken  from 
that  body.* 

In  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  however, 
the  authority  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  con- 
siderably reduced  by  Roman  usurpations, 
by  the  Herodian  scions,  by  the  highpriests 
and  by  the  disputes  of  the  various  schookk 
so  that  it  had  become  much  less  dangerous 
to  offer  opposition  to  that  ancient  body. 

The  dispmesof  the  various  schools  proved 
most  fatal  to  the  authority  of  the  Sanhed- 
rin  among  the  Hebrew  people.  The  Tal- 
mud tells  the  following;  "In  the  beginning 
disputes  could  not  increase  in  Israel,  be- 
cause the  court  of  seventy-one  members 
sat  in  the  hall  of  hewn  stones,  and  two 
more  courts,  each  of  twenty-three  members, 
sat  respectively,  one  at  the  gate  of  the 
temple  mountain,  and  the  other  at  the  gate 
of  the  temple  court ;  and  other  courts  of 
twenty-three  members  met  in  all  towns  of 
Israel.  If  it  became  necessary  to  ask  any 
question,  it  was  proposed  to  the  court  of 
that  same  town.  If  the  decision  was  agree- 
able to  the  parties,  the, question  was  de- 
cided; if  not,  they  had  a  right  to  appeal  to 
any  court  meeting  in  a  place  next  to  the 
said  town.  If  the  said  decision  also  was 
unsatisfactory  to  the  parties,  they  could 

*  (Vide  Talmud  Sabbath,  15  a  and  elsewhere.) 
16 


234  ORIGIN  OP 

appeal  to  the  court  at  the  gate  of  the  temple 
mountain.  If  also  this  decision  was  un- 
satisfactory to  the  parties,  they  could  ap- 
peal to  the  court  meeting  at  the  gate  of  the 
temple  court.  If  also  this  decision  was 
unsatisfactory  to  the  parties,  they  could 
appeal  to  the  high  Sanhedrin,  who,  by  a 
rule  of  the  majority,  gave  the  final  deci- 
sion. But  after  the  increase  of  the  pupils 
of  Shammai  and  Hillel,  whose  knowledge 
was  deficient,  the  disputes  increased  in  Is- 
^ael,  and  the  Law  was  made  to  appear,  as 
though  there  were  two  different  laws." 
(Sanhedrin  88  6.) 

This  passage  clearly  tells  that  with  the 
growth  of  those  two  schools  and  the  in- 
crease of  the  superficial  students,  the 
authority  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  defied ; 
there  was  a  state  of  anarchy  among  the 
doctors  who  were  led  by  scholastic  author- 
ity in  place  of  the  legal  one ;  and  thus  the 
unity  of  the  Law  was  destroyed.  The 
founders  of  these  two  schools,  Hillel  and 
Shammai,  were  elevated  to  the  dignities  of 
President  and  Viee-President  of  the  San- 
hedrin, after  the  battle  of  Actium,  one 
hundred  years  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
Their  disputes  were  continued  to  a  time 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Therefore  this 
state  of  scholastic  anarchy  existed  during 
the  lifetime  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples. 
This  fact  explains  the  opposition  of  Jesus 
to  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes,  although  he 
admonishes  his  disciples  to  obey  the  San- 
hedrin. He  directed  his  polemics  only 


CHRISTIANITY.  235 

against  the  corruption  in  high  places,  but 
also  against  the  disputing  scholasts  who 
"made  the  law  of  God  to  naught,"  or  as 
the  Talmud  has  it,  "  who  made  the  law  ap- 
pear as  though  there  were  two  different 
laws."  This  state  of  scholastic  anarchy 
impaired  the  authority  of  the  Sanhedrin 
in  the  estimation  of  the  people,  so  that  the 
organization  of  an  opposition  Sanhedrin  by 
Peter  and  his  co-laborers  was  not  very 
difficult. 

This,  however,  completed  the  rupture  Be- 
tween the  new  sect  and  the  rabbinical 
laws.  It  does  not  say  that  the  apostles  re- 
jected the  traditional  laws  or  doctrines  of 
Israel ;  for  there  is  a  fixed  difference  be- 
tween the  two.  The  very  fact  that  they 
organized  a  Sanhedrin  for  themselves, 
shows  that  they  adhered  to  the  traditional 
laws.  All  the  prerogatives  of  Christian 
synods,  and  all  the  claims  of  the  Church 
as  an  aggregate  body  are  based  upon  the 
Jewish  traditional  laws.  They  rejected  the 
rabbinical  laws,  and  maintained  that  Jesus 
did  the  same. 

Let  us  explain  the  two  terms.  It  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  that  a  people  with  a 
history  of  fifteen  centuries  and  a  written 
code  of  laws  intended  to  govern  every  ac- 
tion of  mind  and  body,  and  venerated  as 
the  gift  of  the  Most  High,  should  have 
juridical  and  ecclesiastical  traditions,  de- 
cisions in  particular  cases  or  by  particular 
persons,  customs  run  out  of  man's  mem- 
ory, observances  and  prejudices  crystal- 
16* 


236  ORIGIN  OF 

ized  to  divine  laws  by  lo"g  usage.  The 
Common  Law  of  England  took  its  au- 
thority from  a  similar  source  long  before 
parliaments  legislated  for  Anglo-Saxons. 
The  Hebrew  people  had  the  advantage  of 
the  art  of  alphabetic  writing,  and  must 
have  saved  from  oblivion  many  of  those 
traditions  in  the  "secret  rolls,"  Meguillath 
jSetharim,  which  the  Talmud  frequently 
mentions.  Besides  all  these  points,  that 
people  always  had  legally  organized  courts 
o^ustice,  a  supreme  tribunal  and  a  priestly 
organization  with  scribes  to  write  down 
their  transactions.  Many  of  those  docu- 
ments must  have  been  saved,  although  in 
the  main  the  traditional  laws,  doctrines 
and  customs  were  transmitted  verbally 
from  sire  to  son  and  from  master  to  pupil. 
It  was  prohibited  to  write  them  down,  most 
likely  from  the  obvious  reason  not  to  at-* 
tach  to  them  the  importance  of  the  written 
laws  of  Moses. 

The  existence  of  such  traditions  can 
not  well  be  doubted.  The  rabbis  claim- 
ed for  them,  for  some  if  not  for  all,  a  di- 
vine origin,  and  said  God  delivered  the 
verbal  explanations  of  the  Law  to  Moses, 
who  communicated  them  to  Joshua,  he 
taught  them  to  the  elders,  of  whom  the 
prophets  learned  them,  through  whom  they 
reached  the  men  of  the  great  synod  under 
Ezra,  and  so  they  were  handed  down 
authoritatively  to  the  great  Sanhedrin  who 
are  "  the  guardians  of  the  verbal  law  and 
the  pillars  of  justice  ;  the  statutes  and  judg- 


CHRISTIANITY.  237 

ments  for  all  Israel  originate  with  them, 
and  the  Law  points  to  them  in  stating, 
'  And  thou  shalt  do  according  to  the  law 
which  they  will  teach  thee.'  Whosoever 
believes  in  Moses,  our  teacher,  and  in  his 
law,  is  bound  in  duty  to  abide  in  all  mat- 
ters of  law  by  them,  and  foot  upon  them."* 
This  precept,  however,  would  exclude  all 
rabbinical  scholasticism,  for  if  all  the  tra- 
ditions were  finished  with  Moses,  those 
prophets  and  sages  who  succeeded  him  had 
nothing  to  add.  Therefore  they  maintain 
furthermore  that  many  of  the  traditional 
laws  were  forgotten  at  different  times,  three 
thousand  of  them,  they  say,  were  forgotten 
already  when  Israel  mourned  over  the 
death  of  Moses.  (Temurah  14  6.)  The 
teachers  after  Moses  only  restored  the  for- 
gotten traditions  by  their  research  and  by 
logical  inductions  on  principles  which  they 
had  fixed.  They  could  not  have  maintained 
that  the  whole  body  of  rabbinical  laws  and 
doctrines  was  included  in  this  one  category  ; 
they  co^ld  only  think  of  certain  traditions 
which  were  then  well  known.  For  Moses 
Maimonides  himself  who,  as  a  rabbinical 
jurist,  was  unquestionablj7  orthodox,  main- 
tains: "  There  never  was  a  dispute  on  tra- 
ditional matter.  Wherever,  in  the  rab- 
binical works,  there  is  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion on  any  subject,  this  proves  that  this 
matter  is  not  one  of  the  traditions  from 
Moses.  In  matters  of  legal  induction, 
if  the  Sanhedrin  sanctioned  it,  it  was  a 
*  Maimonides,  Yad,  Mamrim  i,  1. 


238  ORIGIN  OF 

law.  If  a  majority  of  the  Sanhedrin  did, 
it  also  was  a  law."f  So  the  ancient  rabbis 
must  have  considered  the  matter,  for  Mai- 
monides  only  repeated  what  they  said. 
Therefore  there  was  a  traditional  law,  on 
which  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion»be- 
sides  the  enactments  of  the  Sanhedrin  ;  and 
the  rabbinical  law,  or  that  portion  of  the 
traditions  which  they  maintained  to  have 
ascertained  by  scholastic  inductions  or  de- 
ductions, against  which  the  Sadducees,  the 
Essenes,  Jesus  and  his  apostles  protested, 
and  which  was  the  apple  of  contention  be- 
twe"en  the  two  schools  of  Hillel  and  Sham- 
mai. 

The  apostles  went  but  one  step  beyond 
Jesus.  Like  their  master  they  believed  in 
both  the  Mosaic  laws  and  the  traditions  as 
the  means  of  salvation  and  rejected  the 
rabbinical  scholasticism;  they  replaced  the 
authority  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the  living 
source  of  the  traditions  and  the  perpetual 
development  of  the  Law,  by  a  Sauhedriu 
of  their  own,  the  apostolic  synod,  for  which 
they  claimed  the  same  authority,  powers, 
and  prerogatives  as  the  legal  Sanhedrin 
did. 

Those  of  our  readers  who  are  unac- 
quainted with  the  scholasticism  of  the 
medieval  ages,  as  it  was  produced  by  Chris- 
tian philosophers  who  discussed  not  only 
fictitious  points,  but  even  absurdities  and 
small  matter,  with  a  hairsplitting  sagacity 

i  Yad,  Mamrim  i.  3. 


CHKISTIANITY.  239 

and  an  artificial  sophistry,  have  no  correct 
idea  of  the  discussion  among  the  followers 
of  Hillel  and  Shammai.  It  is  for  their  bene- 
fit that  we  quote  here  some  points  of  dis- 
sension between  those  schools  to  afford 
them  some  insight  into  the  matter. 

We  open  the  collection  of  the  Mishnoth, 
and  (Berachoth  v)  we  read  the  following  : 
•*  These  are  the  matters  (of  dissension)  be- 
tween the  Shammaites  and  the  Hillelites 
regarding  meals.  The  Shammaites  say, 
one  pronounces  first  the  benediction  over 
the  day  (Sabbath  or  holiday)  and  then  he 
speaks  the  benediction  over  the  wine.  The 
Hillelites  say,  one  pronounces  first  the 
benediction  over  the  wine,  and  then  over 
the  day.  The  Shammaites  maintain,  one 
must  first  wash  his  hands  and  then  fill  the 
goblet  with  wine.  The  Hillelites  maintain , 
one  must  first  fill  the  goblet  with  wine, 
and  then  wash  his  hands.  The  Sham- 
maites maintain,  one  must  wipe  his  hands 
with  a  cloth  and  then  lay  it  on  the  table. 
The  Hillelites  maintain,  he  must  lay  it  on 
the  chair.  The  Shammaites  maintain,  one 
must  first  clean  the  house  of  the  fragments 
and  then  wash  the  hands  after  meal.  The 
Hillelites  maintain,  one  must  wash  his 
hands  first,  and  then  clean  the  house.  The 
Shammaites  maintain,  if  one  eats  on  Satur- 
day evening,  and  night  sets  in  before  he 
has  pronounced  the  benediction  alter  meal, 
he  says  the  benedictions  in  this  order:  on 
the  light,  on  the  food,  on  the  odor  of  the 
spices,  and  on  the  parting  Sabbath.  The 


240  ORIGIN  OF 

Hillelites  maintain  this  order,  on  the  light, 
on  the  odor  of  the  spices,  on  the  food  and 
on  the  parting  Sabbath.  The  Shanimaites 
say  in  the  benediction  on  the  light,  '  Who 
has  created  the  light  from  the  fire.'  The 
Hillelites  say,  '  The  Creator  of  the  light 
from  the  fire.'  " 

We  add  nothing,  we  only  translate.  In 
Pesachim  xi,  6,  for  instance,  there  is  re- 
corded a  dissension  of  the  two  parties  on 
the  topic  how  much  of  a  certain  psalm 
must  be  read  on  the  eve  of  Passover.  In 
Bezah  I  and  II  another  series  of  disputes 
of  the  same  nature  are  recorded,  starting 
out  with  the  problem  :  "If  an  egg  is  made 
on  a  holiday  (after  Sabbath,  hence  it  was 
finished  on  Sabbath,)  the  Shammaites  say, 
it  may  be  eaten  on  that  same  day.  The 
Hillelites  say  it  is  prohibited." 

Most  all  the  subjects  under  discussion  by 
the  parties  appear  trifling,  and  one  can 
hardly  realize  how  men  and  scholars  could 
hit  upon  such  small  things,  and  spend  their 
time  on  such  trifles.  But  it  was  with  them 
as  with  the  scholasts  of  the  medieval  ages  ; 
it  was  not  the  subject,  it  was  the  manner 
and  method  of  discussion,  the  sagacity  and 
sophistry  brought  into  play,  which  had  the 
main  charm  for  them.  But  the  people  who 
saw  their  scholars  engaged  in  the  discus- 
sion of  such  small  matters,  believed  they 
were  important,  and  that  Jed  to  the  minu- 
tiae of  the  rabbinical  laws. 

The  parties  were  not  as  innocent  as  they 
might  appear  from  their  subjects  of  discus- 


CHRISTIANITY.  241 

sion,  or  as  the  Mishnah  maintains  they  were. 
(Yebamoth  i,  4.)  They  went  over  certain 
eighteen  points  as  far  as  disputants  can  go, 
viz:  to  blows,  and  this  was  in  the  San- 
bedrin  at  a  very  dangerous  period.  The 
Shammaites  were  the  zealots  against  whom 
Joseph  us  has  so  much  to  say.*  But  it  is 
not  our  object  to  write  their  history.  We 
merely  wish  to  show  that  the  scholasticism 
of  the  rabbis  must  have  appeared  ridicu- 
lous and  profane  to  the  uninitiated,  or  also 
to  the  impartial  observer.  There  was 
plenty  of  good  reason  to  protest  against 
this  corruption  of  the  understanding,  and 
the  profanation  of  the  words  of  the  Bible 
and  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  complaints 
of  the  other  rabbis  against  "  The  pupils 
of  Shammai  and  Hillel  who  had  not  prac- 
ticed enough,  and  made  the  Law  appear 
like  two  laws  ;"  the  protests  of  the  Sad- 
ducees,  Essenes,  Jesus  and  the  apostles 
against  those  Pharisees  were  certainly 
just.  Their  objections  were  directed  chiefly 
against  this  class  of  Pharisees  who  quibbled 
over  the  laws  and  traditions  of  Israel,  and 
not  against  the  matter  itself. 

After  we  know  that  the  first  teachers  of 
Christianity  observed  the  laws  and  tradi- 
tions of  Israel  and  taught  them  as  the  nec- 
essary means  of  salvation,  we  understand 
well  what  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  understood  by  the  term  sin, 
viz:  non-obedience  to  the  laws  and  tradi- 
tions of  Israel,  or  a  mere  outward  compli- 

*  See  Graetz's  Geschichte  der  Juden,  Vol.  3,  p.  544 


242  ORIGIN  OF 

ance  with  the  law  without  pure  motives — 
hypocrisy,  which  is  so  often  stigmatized  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  We  also  know 
what  they  understood  by  the  terms  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins;  they  un- 
derstood them  as  the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud 
did  the  term  Teshubah,  "  the  returning," 
from  the  dark  path  of  wickedness  to  the 
sunny  avenues  of  righteousness  and  godli- 
ness, back  to  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God, 
which  is  effected  by  true  repentance,  prayer 
and  humiliation  of  soul  and  body  before 
God,  to  which  Peter  added  the  belief  in  the 
crucified  redeemer  and  in  his  second  ad- 
vent, without  dispensing  with  the  former. 
Paul  who  declared  the  Law  itself  abrogated 
could  retain  but  one  thing,  viz  :  faith. 

Knowing  this,  the  question  rises,  What 
was  the  apostles'  doctrine  concerning  the 
main  object  of  the  Law  ?  Is  the  knowledge 
of  God  and  the  communication  of  the  soul 
with  Him,  or  is  the  benefit  accruing  to  man 
from  the  provisions  of  the  Law,  the  main 
object  thereof?  Is  the  GNOSIS  or  is  LOVE 
the  first  principle  of  religion  ?  This  ques- 
tion engaged  the  minds  of  the  most  thought- 
ful and  most  earnest  men  of  the  time,  in 
which  Christianity  originated.  The  con- 
templative life,  as  the  most  eminent  of  all 
human  virtues,  is  the  superior  excellency, 
to  which  even  the  Brahmin  of  India  aspires, 
and  did  aspire  long  before  the  origin 
of  Christianity.  He  ascends  the  summit 
of  a  hill,  or  climbs  to  the  top  of  a  tree,  to 
be  as  nigh  to  God  and  as  far  from  this  sen- 


CHRISTIANITY.  243 

sual  and  sinful  world  as  he  possibly  can  be, 
and  sits  there  for  days  without  food,  the 
head  between  his  knees,  and  dreams  him- 
self into  the  Deity,  to  be  submerged  in  him 
by  contemplation  and  by  abstraction  from 
the  physical  world.  In  this  idiosyncracy 
the  Brahmin  receives  communications  from 
the  Deity,  and  becomes  "  Brahm  himself," 
as  he  maintains.  He  goes  consistently  so 
far  in  this  visionary  life  that  the  earth  with 
all  its  charms,  nature  with  all  her  beauties, 
offer  no  attraction  to  him,  life  is  an  invol- 
untary exile  of  the  soul  from  the  original 
abode,  and  every  human  action,  feeling  or 
thought,  good,  bad  or  indifferent,  is  sinful, 
because  it  disturbs  the  contemplative  life. 
This  characteristic  trait  of  Brahmism,  like 
most  all  Indian  products  of  the  mind,  is 
traceable  throughout  all  ancient  and  mod- 
ern Asiatic  paganism.  It  is  differently 
modified,  variously  expressed,  and  more 
or  less  predominant  in  all  the  systems  oi; 
heathenism.  The  Essenes  of  Egypt,  the 
monks  and  nuns  of  the  Chinese  Buddhists, 
as  well  as  the  monks,  nuns,  and  eremits  of 
Christendom,  are  all  the  offspring,  in  this 
respect,  of  the  Brahminic  doctrine  on  the 
contemplative  life. 

Although  the  mysteries  of  the  Essenes 
and  the  Therapeuts  were  known  to  the  in- 
itiated only,  still  their  very  mode  of 
living  must  have  betrayed  to  the  observer 
the  importance  which  they  attached  to  the 
contemplative  life.  Therefore  the  question 
itself,  whether  the  Gnosis  was  superior  to 


244  ORIGIN  OF 

Love  as  a  main  principle,  must  naturally 
have  been  asked  among  thoughtful  He- 
brews long  before  the  advent  of  either 
Jesus  or  Philo,  who  is  so  often  charged 
with  the  origination  of  Gnosticism.  As  a 
philosophical  product,  Philo  may  have 
shaped  it  to  a  great  extent ;  but  the  matter 
itself,  like  all  the  material  of  philosophy, 
existed  long  before  logic  attempted  to  sub- 
ject it  to  philosophical  discipline. 

Gnosticism  itself  may  be  analyzed  to  the 
following  elements :  The  knowledge  of  God 
and  the  communication  of  the  soul  with 
him  is  the  highest  perfection  which  man 
can  reach  on  earth.  Communion  is  held 
with  God  by  reduction  of  the  body  and  its 
passions  to  the  lowest  claims,  and  in  the 
same  ratio,  by  the  elevation  of  the  soul  to 
the  contemplative  life.  The  soul  receives 
communications  from  God  himself,  not  in 
the  form  of  logical  or  demonstrable 
thoughts  or  conceptions,but  in  the  form  of  an 
ecstatic  disclosure  of  truths  comprehensible 
and  evident  only  to  the  soul  who  receives 
them.  So  far  all  Gnostics  are  alike,  but 
here  they  necessarily  differ,  for  the  disclos- 
ures or  revelations  necessarily  differed 
widely  among  Heathens,  Hebrews  and 
Chrisiiaus,  and  each  had  their  Gnostics. 

Beginning  with  these  elements,  Gnosti- 
cism then  runs  up  from  the  original  dual- 
ism of  knowledge  and  love,  through  the 
mystic  speculations  of  the  ceones  to  the 
dualism  of  the  Deity.  But  we,  in  this 
place,  have  nothing  to  do  with  its  theoso- 


CHRISTIANITY.  245 

phy.  We  must  discuss  this  point,  when 
we  shall  treat  on  the  Logos  and  the  Son  of 
God.  Here  we  only  wish  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  Gnostic  source  as  far  as  it  ef- 
fected the  anthropology  of  those  days. 

The  Gnostic  speculation,  which  in  form 
is  the  direct  opposite  of  the  Hellenistic 
school  of  logical  concepts  and  thoughts, 
and  in  substance  places  knowledge,  THE 
GNOSIS,  above  love — at  the  time  in  which 
Christianity  originated,  had  many  admir- 
ers and  many  opponents.  It  engaged  the 
minds  of  the  thoughtful  persons.  The 
Talmud  has  preserved  numerous  traces  of 
Gnosticism,  also  in  its  anthropological 
bearing.  We  notice  first  a  passage  which 
occurs  twice  in  the  Talmud.* 

The  original  passage  is  in  Sanhedrin,  and 
reads  thus :  "  Rabbi  Eliezer  (the  son  of 
Pedath)  said,  knowledge  (or  the  Gnosis)  is 
so  great  that  it  \vas  placed  between  two 
names  of  the  Deity,  as  it  is  said  (1.  Samuel 
ii,) '  For  the  LORD  of  KNOWLEDGE  is  GOD.'  " 
Here  is  almost  theapothesis  of  the  Gnosis. 
Then  the  same  rabbi  continues,  "  Great  is 
the  sanctuary  (the  temple)  for  it  was  placed 
between  two  names  of  the  Deity ;  as  it  is 
said  (Exodus  xv,)  '  Thou  hast  wrought,  0 
LORD  !  the  SANCTUARY,  O  LORD  !  which 
thine  hands  have  established.'  "  Again 
the  same  rabbi  continues,  "Every  man 
who  possesses  knowledge  (the  Gnosis)  is  as 
worthy  as  if  the  sanctuary  had  been  built 

*  (Sanhedrin  92  o  and  Berachoth  33  a.) 


246  ORIGIN  OF 

in  his  days."  This  places  the  holiness  of 
knowledge  on  the  same  level  with  the  holi- 
ness of  the  temple.  The  same  rabbi  then 
continues,  "  The  man  who  possesses  knowl- 
edge will  eventually  get  rich.  It  is  prohibited 
to  show  mercy  to  a  person  who  possesses 
110  knowledge.  Whoever  gives  his  bread 
to  one  who  possesses  no  knowledge,  will  be 
visited  with  afflictions."  So  we  know  of 
one  prominent  teacher,  and  a  cotemporary 
of  the  apostles,  who  placed  KNOWLEDGE 
higher  than  LOVE.  In  all  these  passages  the 
word  nJH  Deah.  the  literal  translation  of 
Chiosis,  is  used.  The  Talmud  contains  a 
couplet  to  express  this  idea. 

mon  no  jvjp  run 
jvjp  no  rron  njn 

"  Thou  hast  gotten  knowledge,  whatlackest  thou? 
Thou  lackest  knowledge,  what  hast  thou  gotten?  " 

This  idea  must  have  been  deeply  rooted 
among  the  inquiring  portion  of  the  com- 
munity, to  prompt  the  poet  to  give  it  so 
brief  and  finished  an  expression. 

Another  and  still  more  remarkable  pas- 
sage in  the  Talmud,  from  cotemporaries  of 
the  apostles,  must  be  quoted  here.  It  oc- 
curs twicef  and  reads  thus  :  "  At  a  meeting 
of  Rabbi  Tarphon  and  Elders,  in  the  hall 
of  the  house  of  Nithzah  in  Lydda,  the  fol- 
lowing question  was  proposed  to  them : 
Is  the  study  (knowledge)  greater,  or  is  the 
action  (love)  greater  ?  Rabbi  Tarphon  an- 
swered the  action  is  greater;  but  Rabbi 
Akiba  answered,  the  study  is  greater. 

t  KiddusMn  40  b  and  Siphri,  Section  Ekeb. 


CHRISTIANITY.  247 

Then  all  agreed  on  the  answer  that  the 
study  is  greater,  for  knowledge  leads  to 
the  proper  actions." 

Although  the  reply  made  to  this  ques- 
tion decides  nothing,  for  after  all  knowl- 
edge has  only  the  secondary  merit  of  lead- 
ing to  righteousness,  and  the  actions  have 
their  merits  in  themselves  ;  still  it  proves 
two  things;  first,  that  they  looked  upon 
knowledge  and  not  upon  love  as  the 
prompting  cause  to  righteousness ;  and 
secondly  it  proves  that  the  question  was 
asked  and  debated  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles. 

In  the  passage  before  us  Rabbi  Akiba  de- 
cides in  favor  of  Gnosticism,  to  which  he, 
in  his  earlier  days,  was  much  inclined. 
Rabbi  Tarphon  decides  precisely  as  Simeon, 
the  distinguished  son  of  Hillel  did,  and  he 
having  been  prince  of  the  Sanhedrin,  his 
decision  has  traditional  authority.  He 
said,  "  All  my  days  I  have  grown  up 
among  sages,  and  I  found  nothing  better 
for  a  person  than  silence.  And  again,  not 
the  inquiry  is  the  main  thing,  the  action  is. 
And  again  many  words  are  the  cause  of 
sin."  (Abothl.)  This  statement  of  Simeon 
re-echoes  in  the  words  of  Rabbi  Eliezer 
ben  Azariah,  another  cotemporary  of  the 
apostles,  who  makes  piety  and  righteous- 
ness depend  on  wisdom,  and  vicevei*sa  ;  and 
he  then  continues :  "  Like  what  is  he  whose 
wisdom  is  greater  than  his  deeds  ?  He  is 
like  to  a  tree  with  many  branches  and  a 
few  roots ;  the  wind  comes  and  overthrows 


248  ORIGIN  OF 

it.  Like  what  is  he  whose  deeds  are  greater 
than  his  wisdom?  He  is  like  to  the  tree, 
with  a  few  branches  and  many  roots;  if 
all  the  wind  in  the  world  blow  against  it, 
the  tree  will  not  be  moved  from  its  place." 
(Ibid,  iii.) 

It  must  be  stated  here  that  the  knowl- 
edge, wisdom  or  learning,  of  which  the 
rabbis  of  the  Talmud  speak,  must  not  nec- 
essarily be  the  mystic  knowledge  of  the 
Gnostics.  Still  the  principle  involved  in 
the  discussion  is  the  same  precisely  :  Is  the 
Gnosis  or  is  Love  the  first  principle  of  re- 
ligion? The  rabbis  by  no  means  agreed 
on  this  topic.  Their  treatment  of  the  ig- 
norant portion  of  the  community,  the  Am 
Ha-arets,  depended  on  their  philosophical 
view  of  first  principles.  Those  who  in- 
clined to  the  Gnosis  looked  upon  the  ignor- 
ant as  the  equal  of  the  beast  who  deserved 
neither  mercy  nor  compassion,  although 
their  most  noted  teacher,  Hillel,  had  pro- 
nounced as  the  main  law, "  Whatever  hurts 
thee,  thou  shalt  not  do  to  thy  neighbor/' 
They  overcame  that  difficulty  by  calling 
only  the  student  or  the  learned  man  a  Ha- 
bar,  the  term  used  for  neighbor.  Those  who 
held  LOVE  or  the  action,  the  righteous  deeds, 
to  be  the  main  cause  and  effect  of  relig- 
ion,like  the  rabbis  Simeon,  Tarphon,  Eliezer 
ben  Azariah,  Gamliel  of  Jamnia  and  many 
others  did,  looked  upon  the  ignorant,  the 
Afn  Ha-arets,  in  the  light  of  charity  and 
good  will ;  to  them  the  giving  of  alms,  the 
instruction  of  the  ignorant,  and  all  other 


CHRISTIANITY.  249 

works  of  charity  were  of  more  importance 
than  all  the  learning. 

It  is  quite  natural,  therefore,  that  the 
apostles  were  compelled  to  decide  in  favor 
of  the  one  or  the  other  side  of  the  question. 
They  decided  in  favor  of  LOVE.  If  their 
creed  ever  was  couched  in  words,  the  fourth 
article  thereof  must  have  read  somewhat 
to  this  effect : 

Love  and  not  Knowledge  is  the  Active  Cause 
of  Man's  Goodness,  Righteousness  and 
Piety  ;  Love  is  the  First  Principle  of  Re- 
ligion. 

The  reader  of  the  New  Testament  meets 
the  reflex  of  this  doctrine  almost  every- 
where, so  that  we  need  not  quote  any  pas- 
sages to  prove  it.  This  decision  was  not 
new,  as  we  have  seen  already ;  it  embodied 
the  opinion  of  tens  of  thousands  in  Israel ; 
still  it  was  good,  and  besides  this  it  was  the 
popular  side  of  the  question. 

The  apostles  do  not  claim  the  authorship 
of  this  article  in  their  creed ;  they  ascribe 
it  to  their  master,  and  it  appears  most  likely 
that  he  was  the  author,  for  they  penetrated 
not  deep  enough  into  the  questions  which 
agitated  that  age. 

Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  chronicle  the 
same  decision  of  Jesus  under  different  cir- 
cumstances. Matthew  narrates  that,  while 
Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem  shortly  before  his 
death,  "  a  certain  lawyer  asked  him,"  and 
he  did  so  to  tempt  him,  "  Which  is  the 
great  commandment  of  the  law  ?"  With 
17 


250 


ORIGIN  OF 


Mark  it  is  "one  of  the  scribes  "  who  had 
no  intention  to  tempt  Jesus,  on  the  con- 
trary, he  was  pleased  with  his  reasoning, 
who  asks  him,  "Which  is  the  first  com- 
mandment of  all  ?"  According  to  Luke,  it 
was  long  before  the  time  of  his  sojourn  in 
Jerusalem,  nor  was  it  all  in  Jerusalem, 
when  "a  certain  lawyer  stood  up  and 
tempted  him,  saying,  Master,  what  shall  I 
do  to  inherit  eternal  life?"  Thus  Luke 
takes  the  liberty  of  placing  the  same  stoiy 
at  an  entirely  different  place  and  time. 
The  answer  of  Jesus  to  this  query  is  nearly 
the  san:e,  at  least  of  the  same  import  with 
the  three  Synoptics :  "  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.  This 
is  the  first  and  great  commandment.  And 
the  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two 
commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets."  Matthew. 

Luke  begins  with  the  previous  verse  of 
Deuteronomy,  "  The  first  of  all  command- 
ments is,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord,  our  God, 
is  One  Lord :  And  thou  shalt  love,"  &o., 
adding,  "  and  with  all  thy  strength."  Then 
he  cites  the  second  like  Matthew,  and 
lets  Jesus  conclude,  "  There  is  none  other 
commandment  greater  than  this."  Luke 
has  the  answer  thus:  "Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord,  &c.,  and  with  all  thy  strength 
and  with  all  thy  mind  ;  and  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself  "—giving  a  double  translation  of 
>  like  Mark. 


CHRISTIANITY.  251 

The  reply  is  in  substance  the  same  with 
the  Synoptics,  except  that  Mark  also  adds 
the  passage  from  Deuter.,  which  teaches  the 
unity  of  God.  But  the  close  of  the  scene 
is  entirely  different  in  each  Gospel.  Mat- 
thew's lawyer  says  no  more.  Mark's  scribe 
makes  a  lengthy  reply  in  approbation  of 
the  answer  of  Jesus,  repeating  substan- 
tially his  words  and  adding  that  u  this  is 
more  than  all  whole  and  burnt  offerings." 
Jesus  is  pleased  with  this  approbation  and 
says  to  the  man,  "Thou  art  not  far  from 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Luke's  "  certain 
lawyer  "  is  also  satisfied  with  the  answer, 
but  he  is  willing  to  justify  himself,"  and, 
therefore,  asks  Jesus,  "And  who  is  my 
neighbor?"  Jesus  tells  him  the  story  of 
the  good  Samaritan.^ 

The  differences  of  words,  persons,  cir- 
cumstances of  place  and  time,  which  sur- 
round the  main  point,,  only  suggest  one 
thing,  viz:  that  the  Gospel  writers  either 
recorded  various  traditions,  or  Ihey  them- 
selves invented  incidents  to  place  the  words 
of  their  master.  This,  by  no  means,  con- 
tradicts the  main  point,  viz :  that  Jesus 
declared  somewhere  and  to  some  person 
against  the  superiority  of  the  GNOSIS  and 
for  the  superiority  of  LOVE  as  the  first 
principle  of  religion ;  and  that  he  did  so 
in  the  very  words  of  Moses.  He  did  not 
mean  to  say  anything  new,  nor  did  it  ap- 
pear any  way  new  or  strange  to  those  to 

;  (Comp.  Matthew  x.xli,  25;  Markxii.23;  and  Luke 
x,25,> 

17* 


252  'ORIGIN  OP 

whom  it  was  addressed;  he  merely  in- 
tended to  express  Ms  opinion  on  a  pending 
and  exciting  question,  and  he  did  it  in  full 
consonance  with  the  laws  and  traditions  of 
Israel.  The  apostles,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
adopted  this  declaration  of  their  master  as 
a  cardinal  point  of  their  creed. 

John  has  no  note  of  this  anecdote,  nor 
does  he  know  anything  of  this  reply.  But 
this  is  not  strange  at  all.  If  the  "  Son  of 
God  "  was  asked,  "  Which  is  the  first  com- 
mandment of  all?"  or,  "What  shall  I  do 
to  inherit  eternal  life?"  he  must  have  an- 
swered simply,  "  have  faith  in  me."  But 
the  reply  of  Jesus,  astfa-e  synoptics  have  it, 
tells  nothing  of  faith  and  the  abrogation  of 
the  Law ;  it  tells  the  direct  contrary. 
Therefore  if  Jesus  said  so,  Paul  and  John 
do  not  teach  the  religion  of  Jesus,  hence 
John  had  no  room  for  this  passage,  incident , 
question  and  reply. 

Onesidedness  invariably  leads  to  evil  re- 
sults. God  said  to  Abraham,  "  Walk  thou 
before  me  arid  be  thou  perfect."  Moses 
commanded  his  people  :  "  Ye  shall  be  per- 
fect with  the  Lord  your  God."  It  was  cer- 
tainly onesided  with  the  rabbis  who  ele- 
vated knowledge  or  the  Gnosis  to  the 
highest  good  of  man,  to  the  detriment  of 
love  and  charity ;  as  it  was  onesided  with 
the  apostles  who  elevated  love  and  charity 
to ,  the  highest  good  of  man,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  knowledge  and  of  the  under- 
standing. Man  is  an  intelligent  and 
not  exclusively  an  affectkmal  being;  by 


CHRISTIANITY.  253 

the  grace  of  God,  he  is  gifted  with  both 
understanding  and  affection.  It  is  his  duty 
to  develope  both  gifts  harmoniously,  so  that 
each  may  control  the  other.  Both  parties 
produced  good  and  evil.  Let  us  cast  a 
glance  upon  the  consequences  as  the  ma- 
terials before  us  present  them  to  our  ob- 
servation. 

The  rabbis  who,  as  we  have  seen,  almost 
deified  the  Gnosis,  and  thought  the  largest 
amount  of  human  happiness  and  perfection 
results  from  the  greatest  store  of  knowledge 
and  research,  promulgated  an  intense  desire 
after  knowledge  and  wisdom,  and  a  pro- 
found veneration  for  learning  and  for  the 
learned.  The  following  passages  from  the 
Talmud  will  illustrate  this. 

The  social  position  of  the  sage,  the  learned 
man,  is  frequently  fixed  as  superior  to  all 
persons.  We  copy  from  the  Talmud  Ye- 
rushalrni  (Iforiothili,  7,)  "The  sage  pre- 
cedes the  king  ;  the  king  precedes  the  high- 
priest."  The  Talmud  then  continues  in 
describing  the  grades  of  priestly  officers 
who  precede  (in  honois)  the  Levite,  who 
again  precedes  the  private  Israelite.  Then 
it  continues  in  describing  the  grades  among 
the  Israelites,  from  those  of  legitimate  birth 
to  those  of  illegitimate  birth,  the  alien  and 
the  freed  man  ;  and  then  it  concludes  thus  : 
'*  When  (do  we  regard  these  grades)  if  they 
are  all  alike  (in  learning) ;  but  if  the  bas- 
tard be  a  learned  man,  and  the  highpriest 
is  ignorant,  then  the  bastard  precedes  even 
the  highpriest.  *  The  sage  precedes  the 


254  ORIGIN  OF 

king;'  for  if  the  sage  die,  we  have  none 
like  him  ;  if  the  king  die,  every  Israelite 
is  competent  to  assume  the  royal  office." 
Further  on  the  sage  is  compared  with  the 
precious  metals:  "But  if  they  be  lost,  we 
have  equivalents,  if  the  sage  die,  who 
brings  us  an  equivalent?"  This  social 
status  of  the  sage  is  frequently  fixed  in  the 
same  manner  in  various  passages  of  the 
Talmud.* 

As  in  the  social  rank  so  also  in  matters 
of  religion,  the  Talmud  places  the  sage  at 
the  head  of  all  persons.  So  we  read  (Baba 
Bathra,  12,)  "Since  the  day  that  the  sanc- 
tuary (of  Jerusalem)  WPS  destroyed,  the 
prophecy  was  taken  from  the  prophets,  and 
was  given  to  the  sages.  Why,  is  the  sage 
not  also  a  prophet?  (or  was  not  prophet 
and  sage  identical  before  that  time  also  ?) 
It  should  be  stated  thus :  Although  the 
prophecy  was  (at  that  time)  taken  from 
the  prophets,  from  the  sages  it  was  not 
taken.  Amemar  says,  THE  SAGE  is  BETTER 

THAN  THE  PROPHET." 

This  is  saying  a  great  deal  at  once.  In 
the  first  place,  according  to  the  best  and 
oldest  commentaries,  it  is  maintained  in 
t3iis  passage  that  the  logical  inductions  of 
the  sages  are  as  good,  if  not  better  than  the 
revelations  of  the  prophets.  Thts  places 
the  understanding  on  a  level  with  revela- 
tion. In  the  second  place  it  maintains  per- 


*  See  YcrusJialmi  Sabbath  xii,  3;  and  the  parallel 
passages  in  the  Eabli  and  the  Midrashim,  noted  in 
loco  cit. 


CHRISTIANITY.  255 

petual  revelation  through  the  understand- 
ing. And  in  the  third  place  it  fixes  the 
status  of  the  sage  above  the  prophet,  hence 
he  is  the  highest  authority.  If  the  first 
passage  expresses  the  highest  democracy, 
this  latter  one  expresses  the  highest  ration- 
ality. 

In  strict  consistency  with  the  above,  the 
Talmud  maintains  with  the  Mishnah, 
"Stricter  obedience  must  be  paid  to  the 
words  of  the  Scribes  (the  older  sages)  than 
to  the  words  of  the  Law  ;"  or  as  the  Talmud 
has  it,  "  The  words  of  the  Scribes  are  more 
beloved  than  the  words  of  the  Law  ;"  or, 
"  The  words  of  the  Elders  must  be  observed 
more  strictly  than  the  words  of  the 
Prophets,  "f 

In  connection  with  these  remarkable 
passages,  the  Talmud  Yerushalmi  makes 
the  following  comparison:  "The  prophet 
and  the  senator  (elder  or  sage)  are  like  unto 
two  officers  whom  a  king  sends  into  the 
province.  He  writes  concerning  the  first, 
if  he  will  not  show  you  my  seal  and  my 
signature,  ye  shall  not  believe  him ;  but 
concerning  the  o^her,  he  writes,  if  he  even 
shall  not  show  you  rny  seal  and  my  signa- 
ture, ye  shall  believe  him  anyhow.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  prophet  and  the 
sage.  As  to  the  prophet,  Scriptures  say, 
1  And  he  will  give  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder  ;' 
but  as  regards  the  sages,  it  is  commanded 
unconditionally,  'And  thou  shalt  do  ac- 


T  Mishnah  Sanhedrin  xi,5;  Talm.  Yerushalmi  ibid. 
xi,  6,  and  the  parallel  passages  in  the  Babli. 


256  ORIGIN  OF 

cording  to  the  law  which  they  will  teach 

thee.'" 

Again  in  strict  consistency  with  the 
above,  the  Mishnah  (Peak  i,  1)  counting  the 
principal  laws,  of  which  "  man  enjoys  the 
fruits  (the  interests)  in  this  world,  and  the 
main  capital  in  the  next  world,"  to  which 
also  belongs,  "  to  honor  father  and  mother, 
charity  (to  the  living  and  the  dead,)  to  feed 
the  hungry,  to  visit  the  sick,  to  bury  the 
dead,"  <fcc—  it  concludes,  "  But  the  study  of 
the  Law  is  equivalent  to  all  of  them." 
Therefore  if  one  does  none  of  those  acts  of 
charity,  but  he  studies  diligently,  he  is 
yet  as  good  before  God  and  man,  as  the 
one  who  does  all  possible  charity.  Mai- 
monides  in  his  commentary  to  this  passage 
thinks  this  preponderance  of  the  study  of 
the  Law  is  maintained,  because,  as  Rabbi 
Tarphon  and  the  elders  with  him  con- 
cluded, "  knowledge  leads  to  virtue,"  hence 
not  the  study  perse,  but  as  the  sure  means 
and  active  cause  of  virtue  and  piety,i»  given 
the  preponderance;  but  the  passage  ap- 
peared differently  to  the  Yerushalmi,  quoted 
by  Rabbenu  Asher,  where  it  says  not  only 
all  things  in  this  world,  but  also  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Law  themselves — i.  e. 
the  observance  of  all  of  them  is  inferior  to 
the  act  of  studying  the  Law.  This  is  the 
perfect  Gnosis  in  the  rabbinical  form. 

Study  and  knowledge  were  not  limited 
with  them  to  Sacred  Scriptures  and  com- 
mentaries ;  they  were  very  zealously  at- 
tached to  profane  learning,  as  is  evident 


CHRISTIANITY.  257 

from  the  large  number  of  them  who  were 
physicians,  surgeons  and  mathematicians  ; 
from  the  fact  that  every  Grecian  system  of 
philosophy,  from  Pythagoras  to  the  New 
Platonics  and  from  Thales  to  the  last  out- 
growth of  Epicurism,  has  left  some  frag- 
ment in  the  Talmud;  and  from  passages 
like  this  :  "Bar  Kapra"  (an  elder  contem- 
porary of  the  apostles)  "said,  Whoever 
understands  to  calculate  the  orbits  and  the 
planets,  and  does  not  do  so,  is  included 
under  those  of  whom  the  prophet  said 
(Isaiah  v,)  'And  they  behold  not  the  work- 
ing of  God,  and  they  see  not  the  work  of 
his  hands.' "  Samuel,  a  sage  of  a  later 
date,  was  not  satisfied  with  this ;  he  must 
have  a  positive  commandment  of  the  Bible 
that  such  is  the  duty  of  every  body,  and 
sure  enough  he  finds  it:  "  Hjow  so  do  we 
know  that  man  is  commanded  to  calculate 
the  orbits  and  the  planets?  Because  it 
is  said  (Dent,  ii,)  '  And  ye  shall  observe 
them  and  ye  shall  do  them,  for  this  is  your 
wisdom  and  your  intelligence  in  the  eyes 
of  the  nations.'  Which  is  the  wisdom  and 
intelligence  in  the  eyes  of  the  nations  f  This 
is  only  the  calculation  of  the  orbits  and 
the  planets."  (Sabbath  75.) 

To  the  scholar  they  were  exceedingly 
tolerant  and  liberal.  They  said  the  Samari- 
tan or  even  the  Heathen  who  studies  the 
Law  is  as  good  as  the  highpriest.  They 
maintained  that  some  of  the  brightest 
scholars  were  descendants  from  Heathens, 
and  mention  especially  Shemaiah  and  Ab- 


258  OllIGIN    OF 

talion,  who  presided  over  the  Sanhedrin  ; 
Rabbi  Akiba  and  RaJbbi  Mair,  two  great 
lights  in  their  respective  days.  They  sup- 
posed the  latter  to  be  a  descendant  of  the 
Emperor  Nero.  They  were  also  exceed- 
ingly forbearing  to  the  student  and  main- 
tained, "  If  a  sage  commits  a  sin  at  da}7 
time,  thou  shalt  not  think  hard  of  him  at 
night,  for  he  certainly  has  already  repented 
his  misdemeanor."  They  recommended 
again  and  anon  to  honor  the  savan,  and 
went  even  so  i'ar  that  they  placed  this  duty 
equal  to  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  They 
advised  the  young  men  that  one  should 
rather  sell  all  he  has  and  marry  the  daugh- 
ter of  a  sage ;  and  they  advised  parents  to 
give  their  daughters  in  marriage  to  students 
only.  They  went  so  far  that  they  stated, 
"  Study  the  Law,  even  if  it  be  not  with  the 
intention  to  observe  it;  for  if  first  the  mo- 
tive be  bad,  it  will  be  good  afterward." 
They  maintained,  the  wisdom  of  the  sage 
steadily  increases  as  he  advances  in  age ; 
and  the  folly  of  the  illiterate  progresses  in 
the  same  ratio. 

This  moral  encouragement  given  to  the 
study  of  the  Law  and  the  acquirement  of 
knowledge  in  general  could  not  fail  to 
stimulate  a  popular  desire  after  instruc- 
tion, and  to  inspire  respect  of  the  Law,  its 
expounders  and  administrators.  This  pro- 
duced two  good  effects,  respect  before  the 
laws  and  love  of  knowledge.  These  are 
certainly  two  mighty  pillars  to  the  pros- 
perity and  progress  of  any  people.  But  it 


CHRISTIANITY.  259 

was  outdone,  it  became  onesided,  and  pro- 
duced evil  effects.  It  produced  the  rab- 
binical scholasticism,  which  pressed  the 
divine  commandments  into  the  narrow 
forms  of  laws,  and  imposed  the  letter  in 
place  of  the  spirit  thereof.  This  was  fraught 
with  perversion  and  hypocrisy.  It  sur- 
rounded the  scholasts  with  the  veneration 
and  the  dignity  due  to  the  legal  authorities 
and  especially  to  the  Sanhedrin.  This  al- 
most destroyed  the  influence  of  that  body, 
and  produce  >  a  scholastic  anarchy,  as  we 
have  seen  above.  It  made  the  students 
haughty,  vain  and  aristocratic,  to  look 
clown  upon  the  ignorant  masses  with  con- 
tempt and  seliishness,  and  to  esteem  virtue 
herself  as  a  secondary  matter. 

The  opinions  of  this  class  of  rabbis  on 
the  ignorant  masses,  the  Am  Ifaaretx,  are 
truly  revolting,  especially  those  of  the 
Rabbi  Eliezer,  whom  we  have  mentioned 
above.  He  expressed  himself  that  it  was 
prohibited  to  show  mercy  to  an  ignorant 
man,  and  maintained  that  he  who  gives 
bread  to  the  ignorant  will  be  visited  with 
afflictions.  He  went  so  far  as  to  deny  a 
soul  to  the  ignorant,  and  to  place  him  on  a 
level  with  the  beast.  That  same  rabbi 
said,  "The  ignorant  live  not."  (Kethu- 
both  111.)  He  thought  (Pesachim  49  "&,)  "  If 
we  were  not  useful  to  the  ignorant  in  trade 
and  in  business  they  would  surely  kill  us,'- 
The  same  rabbi  stated,  "It  is  allowed 
to  cut  the  throat  of  the  ignorant  on  the 


260  ORIGIN  OP 

Day  of  Atonement,  even  if  it  happens  on  a 

Sabbath." 

But  it  was  not  this  Gnostic  rabbi  alone 
who  raged  against  the  ignorant  masses,  the 
rabbis  enacted  a  law  reading  thus:  "Six 
things  are  said  concerning  the  ignorant. 
None  must  even  testify  for  them ;  nor 
must  their  testimony  be  received;  no  se- 
cret must  be  entrusted  to  them ;  they 
must  not  be  appointed  guardians  of  or- 
phans, or  of  public  funds,  and  none  must 
go  with  them  on  the  high  way.  Some 
maintain,  their  lost  things  must  not  be  ad- 
vertised." 

Also  the  author  of  the  Mishnah,  Rabbi 
Jehudah,  the  prince,  was  guilty  of  this 
terrible  mistake.  It  is  told  of  him  (Baba 
Balhra]  "  Rabbi  (Jehudah)  opened  his 
treasures  in  the  year  of  scarcity.  He  said, 
let  there  come  in  men  who  read  the  Mish- 
nah (statute  law,)  men  who  read  the  Tal- 
mud (commentaries,)  men  who  read  the 
Hagadoth  (moral  treatises  on  Scriptures) ; 
but  let  no  ignorant  man  come  in.  One, 
Jonathan  ben  Amram,  pushed  himself 
through  and  entered.  He  said,  Rabbi,  give 
me  support  as  to  a  dog,  give  me  support  as 
to  a  raven  !  Rabbi  gave  him  some  support. 
But  when  the  man  was  gone,  the  rabbi  was 
sorry  and  exclaimed,  woe  to  me,  I  have 
given  of  my  bread  to  the  ignorant !  Then 
Simon,  his  son,  said,  perhaps  this  Jonathan 
ben  Amram  is  one  of  thy  pupils  who  would 
not  claim  support  on  the  merits  of  his 


CHRISTIANITY.  261 

knowledge.  The  matter  was  investigated 
and  it  was  found  to  be  so  ;  the  rabbi  said, 
let  enter  who  may  come.  Rabbi  thought : 
Evil  comes  upon  the  world  on  account  only 
of  the  ignorant." 

Also  the  enlightened  and  liberal  Rabbi 
Mair  said  :  "  Whoever  gives  his  daughter 
in  marriage  to  an  ignorant  man,  does  the 
same  as  if  he  would  bind  her  and  cast  her 
before  a  lion." 

It  is  true  they  maintained :  "  The  hatred 
with  which  the  ignorant  hate  the  sages  is 
greater  than  the  hatred  of  the  heathens  to 
Israel;  and  the  hatred  of  their  wives  is 
still  fiercer."  Rabbi  Akiba,  who  was  many 
years  one  of  the  ignoramuses  and  then  in- 
clined for  some  time  to  gnosticism,  testifies 
that  he  himself  felt  this  hatred  for  the 
sages.  But  it  may  be  set  down  as  a  holding 
rule,  the  hatred  of  any  lower  class  against 
a  higher  is  the  result  of  oppression  or  neg- 
ligence ;  it  is  merely  a  natural  retalia- 
tion. 

The  haughtiness  and  vain  pride  of  the 
Gnostic  rabbis,  and  their  indifference  to 
virtue  and  charity,  roused  the  indignation 
of  the  illiterate  masses,  and  led  to  the  ha- 
tred and  to  the  division  of  society  into  two 
hostile  factions,  the  Haber  and  the  Am 
Haarets;* 

The  number  of  the  ignorant  must,  from 
the  nature  of  things,  have  been  very  large 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  because  there 


*See  Sechoroth  30  6;  Alodah  Sarah  6  and  35;  and 
Tosefta  Demai  58. 


262  ORIGIN  OF 

were  but  few  public  schools.  The  rabbis 
shite,  "  Verily,  the  memory  of  that  man  is 
for  good,  and  his  name  is  Joshua  (or  Jesus) 
the  son  of  Gamala.  If  it  had  not  been  for 
him,  the  Law  would  have  been  forgotten  in 
Israel.  For  in  former  days  whoever  had  a 
father  who  understood  the  Law, was  taught ; 
who  had  none,  was  not  taught.  The  law, 
'  Ye  shall  teach  them  (the  laws)  to  your 
children,'  was  interpreted  to  the  effect  that 
schools  for  children  were  established  in  Je- 
rusalem, because  it  says,  '  For  from  Zion 
shall  go  forth  the  law  and  the  word  of  God 
from  Jerusalem.'  Who  had  a  father  (who 
was  able  and  willing  to  do  it)  was  sent  to 
school  to  Jerusalem ;  who  had  no  father  (or 
he  was  not  able  or  not  willing  to  do  it)  was 
not  sent  to  school.  Then  a  law  was  enacted 
that  teachers  for  children  should  be  ap- 
pointed for  every  district,  and  the  young 
ones  were  brought  there  at  the  age  of  six- 
teen to  seventeen.  If  the  teacher  got  angry 
against  a  pupil  and  chastised  him,  the  pu- 
pil left  school.  But  when  Joshua,  the  son 
of  Gamala,  came,  they  enacted  a  law  that 
schools  were  established  in  every  town 
and  in  every  province,  and  the  young  ones 
were  sent  there  at  the  age  of  six  to  seven 
years."  (Baba  Bathra  21  a.} 

This  Joshua  ben  Gamala  was  appointed 
highpriest  by  Albinus,  63  or  04  A.  C.,  six  or 
seven  years  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
This  law  may  have  been  enacted  by  the 
Sanhedrin  by  the  influence  of  Joshua  be- 
fore he  was  appointed  high  priest ;  anyhow 


CHRISTIANITY.  263 

the  public  school  system  for  children  out- 
side of  Jerusalem  did  have  no  existence 
previous  to  50  A.  C.  To  send  pupils  to 
Jerusalem,  or  to  the  distant  schools,  was 
both  expensive  and  inconvenient.  Only 
the  rich  classes  could  make  use  of  this 
benefit.  The  matter  being  left  altogether 
to  the  option  of  the  parents,  not  only  the 
children  of  the  poor,  but  also  many  chil- 
dren of  the  rich,  if  they  had  no  learned 
parents,  received  no  education  at  all. 
Therefore  the  class  of  the  Am  Haarets 
could  not  have  been  small  in  the  age  of 
the  apostles. 

Therefore  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  in  favor  of  the  ignorant  and  the 
poor,  to  whom  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
promised,  while  it  was  denied  to  the  rich 
and  to  the  learned,  was  a  retaliation  against 
the  Gnostic  rabbis,  which  would  have  elec- 
trified the  masses  and  gained  ground  and 
favor  with  the  ten  thousands  of  Israel,  had 
the  doctrine  not  been  first  preached  in  Je- 
rusalem, where  ignorance  was  not  common, 
and  had  not  the  other  rabbis,  Pharisees 
and  scribes  adhered  to  anti-Gnostic  and 
sound  principles  of  justice  and  charity 
without  discouraging  knowledge,  study 
and  research. 

Be  it  said  in  honor  of  that  age  and  of  the 
Talmud  that  the  most  sublime  principles 
and  doctrines  of  charity,  justice,  love  and 
humanity  went  side  by  side  with  the  Gnos- 
tic extravagances,  and  are  recorded  side  by 
side  with  them  in  the  Talmud.  We  have 


264  ORIGIN  OF 

already  quoted  some  sentences  of  anti- 
Gnostic  rabbis  ;  but  their  number  is  legion 
and  we  can  only  quote  some  more  of  them 
to  afford  the  reader  a  clear  insight  into  the 
spirit  of  that  age. 

Hillel,  the  humble,  meek  and  learned 
Hillel,  laid  down  the  great  principle,  "  Be 
thou  of  the  pupils  of  Aaron,  to  love  peace 
and  to  pursue  after  peace,  to  love  the  people 
and  to  attach  them  to  the  Law."  (Aboth  i, 
12.)  This  is  the  source  from  which  Jesus 
drew  his  decision  as  to  the  most  important 
of  all  laws.  Based  upon  this,  Simon,  the 
son  of  Hillel,  said,  "Knowledge  is  not  the 
main  thing,  deeds  are;"  and  Simon,  the 
great  grandson  of  Hillel  said,  "The  world 
stands  upon  three  things — justice,  truth 
and  peace."  These  three  men  were  Presi- 
dents of  the  Sanhedrin  ;  they  expounded 
the  import  of  the  traditions.  Rabbi  Johan- 
iian  ben  Saccai,  the  pupil  of  Hillel,  and 
President  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jamnia  from 
70  to  74  A.  C.,  opposes  the  selfish  doctrine 
of  his  Gnostic  cotemporaries  in  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "  If  thou  hast  learned  much  of 
the  Law,  do  not  imagine  thyself  any  better 
for  that;  for  it  is  the  object  of  thy  exist- 
ence." (Aboth  ii,  8.)  To  the  same  purpose 
it  is  stated  in  the  Talmud,  "Whoever 
studies  the  Law  in  order  to  observe  the 
commandments,  it  will  be  to  him  a  balm 
of  life ;  and  whoever  studies  the  Law  with- 
out the  intention  of  observing  its  com- 
mandments, it  will  be  to  him  a  poison  of 
death."  (Taanith  5.)  "Whoever  studies 


CHRISTIANITY.  265 

the  Law  and  teaches  not  is  like  to  the  myr- 
tle in  the  wilderness,  where  there  is  none 
to  enjoy  its  odor."  (Rosh  Hashonah  23.) 
"  A  sage  who  is  not  candid  and  honest  is 
not  a  sage."  (Joma  72.) 

In  all  these  cases,  and  there  are  hundreds 
more  of  the  same  import,  it  is  not  the 
knowledge  which  gives  real  value  to  the 
man ;  it  is  much  more  true  piety  and  charity, 
resulting  from  an  enlightened  will,  which 
elevate  him  to  human  excellency. 

Another  cotemporary  of  the  apostles, 
Rabbi  Hanina  ben  Dosa,  whom  we  have 
noticed  before  as  the  man  of  many  miracles, 
says  this :  "  lie  whose  good  deeds  are  more 
than  his  wisdom  will  retain  possession  of 
his  wisdom ;  but  he  whose  wisdom  is 
greater  than  his  good  deeds  will  not  retain 
possession  of  his  wisdom.  Whosoever  is 
beloved  by  the  people  is  also  beloved  by 
God  ;  and  whosoever  is  not  beloved  by  the 
people  is  not  beloved  by  God."  (Aboth  iii, 
9,  10.)  In  the  same  sense  another  rabbi 
says  concerning  the  learned  and  the  ignor- 
ant :  "  I  am  a  creature,  so  is  my  neighbor 
(the  less  learned.)  I  have  my  business  in 
the  city,  he  has  his  in  the  field.  I  rise  early 
to  go  to  my  business,  so  he  rises  to  go  to 
his.  He  covets  not  my  position,  nor  do  I 
covet  his.  Therefore  his  merit  is  BO  less 
than  mine,  provided  the  fear  of, the  Lord 
guides  his  steps."  (Berachoth  17.)  Here 
is  none  of  the  vanity  and  overbearing  as- 
sumption of  the  Gnostic  rabbis;  on  the 

18 


266  ORIGIN  OF 

contrary,  all  these  words  breathe  a  pure 

spirit  of  humanity. 

One  of  the  finest  and  most  enlightened 
fragments  of  rabbinical  literature  is  the 
following  of  the  learned  Kabbi  Akiba,  who, 
although  ignorant  to  the  age  of  forty  and 
then  addicted  to  gnosticism,  came  out  after 
all  a  great  and  good  man.  He  said  :  "  Be- 
loved is  man,  for  he  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God.  It  is  a  particular  love  to 
make  known  unto  him  that  he  was  created 
in  the  image  of  God,  as  is  said,  'In  the 
image  of  God  he  made  man.'  Beloved  is 
Israel  who  are  called  sons  of  God.  It  is 
a  particular  love  to  make  known  to  them 
that  they  are  called  the  sons  of  God,  as  is 
said,  '  Ye  are  sons  to  the  Lord  your  God.' " 
(Aboth  iii,  15.)  Further  on  he  says  this: 
"  All  is  seen  (Providence,)  and  freedom  is 
given,  and  the  world  is  judged  with  good- 
ness (by  God,)  and  the  whole  depends  on 
the  majority  of  actions,"  (if  these  are  good, 
the  world  is;  if  not,  not.)  To  our  recol- 
lection there  is  not  a  more  liberal,  more 
humane  or  a  wiser  expression  of  opinion 
any  where  in  ancient  literature;  and  he 
who  uttered  it  was  the  man  who  shaped 
and  formed  his  age.  He  affords  the  index 
to  the  traditions  as  they  were. 

These  rabbis  represent  the  better  side  of 
knowledge,  wisdom,  research  and  enlight- 
enment, not  only  in  general  principles,  but 
also  in  particular  laws  and  maxims  on 
justice,  charity  and  moral  purity. 

In  regard  to  charity  the  following  story 


CHRISTIANITY.  207 

is  illustrative  of  rabbinical  opinions : 
"  King  Munabaz  spent  all  his  property  in 
giving  alms  to  the  poor.  His  relatives  sent 
him  word,  'thy  forefathers  increased  their 
property  and  their  fathers',  and  thou 
spendest  thy  property  and  thy  father's.' 
He  replied,  my  fathers  amassed  upon 
earth,  and  I  amass  in  heaven  ;  my  fathers 
amassed  treasures  which  bear  no  interests, 
and  I  amass  treasures  which  bear  inter- 
ests ;  my  fathers  deposited  them  in  places 
which  human  hands  might  reach,  and  I 
deposit  them  in  a  place  which  no  human 
hand  can  reach  ;  my  fathers  gained  money 
and  I  gain  souls  ;  my  fathers  collected  in 
this  world,  and  I  collect  for  the  future 
world."*  Munabaz  is  reported  to  have 
quoted  a  scriptural  passage  in  support  of 
each  of  his  statements.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
it  exhibits  the  conceptions  of  his  age  in  re- 
gard to  charity  and  to  the  Scriptures.  The 
following  rabbinical  sentences  are  of  the 
same  import :  "  He  who  gives  secret  alms 
is  greater  than  Moses  our  teacher."  "Ho 
who  gives  a  penny  to  the  poor  is  blessed 
with  six  blessings  ;  and  he  who  consoles 
him  with  soothing  words  is  blessed  with 
eleven  blessings."  "  Whoever  makes  it  a 
rule  to  give  alms,  will  be  blessed  with  sons 
who  will  be  wise,  wealthy  and  eloquent." 
"  All  the  benevolence  and  charity  which 
Israel  do  in  this  world  will  bring  them 
great  peace  and  great  pleaders  before  their 

*Yerushalmi,  Pcah  i;  Bablt.  BaliuBafhra  11  ;  Tonrft<i 
Pcah  Iv. 

18* 


' 


V 

/erv-g 


268  OllIGIN  OF 

Father  in  heaven."  They  continue  in  this 
wise  to  praise  the  greatness  of  charity  ;  but 
we  will  quote  only  one  more  passage,  be- 
cause it  comes  from  a  cotemporary  of  the 
apostles:  "Turnus  Ruf'us  asked  Rabbi 
Akiba,  if  your  God  loves  the  poor  why 
does  he  not  support  them  ?  The  rabbi  re- 
plied, in  order  to  save  us  from  the  judg- 
ment of  hell  (by  giving  them  alms.)  Rufus 
said,  that  will  do  just  the  contrary,  it  will 
condemn  you  .to  hell.  I  will  tell  thee  a 
parable  :  This  is  much  like  to  a  human 
king,  who,  being  angry  at  one  of  his  ser- 
vants, sends  him  to  prison,  and  commands 
to  give  him  neither  food  nor  drink  ;  but  a 
person  goes  and  gives  the  prisoner  food 
and  drink,  will  not  the  king  be  angry  at 
him?  Yo  are  called  servants,  as  your  Law 
says,  For  to  me  are  the  children  of  Israel 
servants.  Rabbi  Akiba  replied,  I  will  tell 
thee  another  parable.  This  is  much  like  to 
a  king  who,  being  angry  at  his  son,  com- 
mands him  to  prison,  and  orders  that  nei- 
V!  ther  food  nor  drink  should  be  given  him  ; 
but  a  person  goes  and  gives  to  the  son  food 
1  I  „,.•  and  drink.  The  king  on  learning  this, 
sends  presents  to  that  person.  We  are 
called  God's  children,  "  Ye  are  sons  of  the 


|L» 


Lord  your  God.' 

Higher  still  than  alms,  the  rabbis  value 
personal  charity  and  benevolence  ;  such  as 
visiting  the  sick,  burying  the  dead,  /Jesus 
said,  "  Let  the  dead  bury  tiie  dead,'')  con- 
soling the  mourners,  cheering  the  bride 
and  bridegroom,  (fee.,  which  they  call  Gue- 


CHRISTIANITY.  259 

milath  Ilescd.  In  all  this,  they  manifest 
not  only  the  practical  application  of  the 
rule  of  Hillel,  "  Love  the  people,'rbut  their 
conception  of  the  Law  in  the  strictest  sense 
of  humanity,  entirely  contrary  to  their 
Gnostic  cotemporaries. 

We  must  dwell  a  little  longer  on  one  more 
topic,  viz:  on  the  divine  command,  to  honor 
father  and  mother.  The  Evangelists,  in 
their  usual  attempt  to  tell  stories  of  Jesus 
which  make  him  say  or  fulfill  Scriptural 
passages,  place  him  in  an  awkward  posi- 
tion opposite  his  mother  and  his  brothers, 
whom  he  abuses  in  harsh  words.  All  thi? 
the  Evangelistsf  do,  to  have  Jesus  act  and 
speak  as  Moses  says  the  Levites  did  when 
the  people  had  made  the  golden  calt,  and 
which,  he  thought,  they  would  always  do 
under  similar  circumstances  (See  Deuter. 
xxxiii,  8  to  11.)  The  difference  however  is, 
that  the  mother  and  the  brothers  of  Jesus 
had  made  no  golden  calf,  and  Jesns  was  no 
Levitical  guard  of  the  sanctuary. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  Jesus  was  guilty 
of  the  gross  violation  of  the  divine  law, 
the  story  only  suggests  to  us  the  concep- 
tions of  the  Evangelists  on  this  topic.  In 
this  as  in  many  other  respects  the  rabbis 
maintain  a  moral  superiority  over  the 
Evangelists.  We  quote  the  following  rab- 
binical story  of  cotemporaries  of  the 
aposiles  :  "  The  mother  of  Rabbi  Tarphon 
came  down  to  walk  on  Sabbath  in  her  yard; 


tSee  letters  of  Rev.  Dr.  Guinzburg,  ISRAELITE  Vol. 
xiv.  Nos.  6—  2Ti,  <te. . 


270  ORIGIN  or 

Rabbi  Tarphon  put  his  hands  under  her 
feet  till  she  had  reached  again  her  bed. 
Once,  when  she  was  sick,  the  sages  came 
to  see  her.  She  said  to  them,  pray  for  my 
son  Tarphon,  for  he  has  honored  me  more 
than  enough.  When  the}7  asked  her  what 
he  had  done  for  her,  she  told  the  story. 
Thereupon  they  said  to  her,  if  he  had  done 
for  thee  a  thousand  times  thousand  times 
more,  he  had  not  yet  done  half  what  the 
.Scriptures  command  concerning  honor  to 
the  mother."  (  Ycrushalmi.Peahi.}  Stories  of 
this  kind  are  frequent  in  the  Talmud.  The 
question  is  not  whether  they  are  true ;  the 
main  question  is  the  moral  lesson  they 
contain. 

This  will  suffice  to  show  that,  while  the 
Gnostic  rabbis  preached  immoral  lessons, 
and  clung  to  knowledge  and  research  only 
as  the  highest  good  to  man,  the  other  rab- 
bis clung  to  humanity  and  liberality,  to 
justice,  charity  and  moral  purity,  without 
underrating  the  value  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge.  The  reader  of  the  Talmud 
must  not  forget  that  it  is  an  encyclopedical 
work  of  large  dimensions,  which  embodies 
the  wisdom  and  the  folly  of  six  centuries, 
of  a  sagacious,  impulsive  and  cultivated 
people. 

The  lessons  of  love  and  humanity  which 
the  apostles  preached  in  the  name  of  their 
master  were  not  new  cither  in  Jerusalem 
or  anywhere  else  among  well-informed  Is- 
raelites. They  were  drawn  from  precisely 
the  same  source  and  by  the  same  means,  as 


CHRISTIANITY.  271 

those  of  the  rabbis,  from  the  Scriptures  and 
traditions  of  Israel.  The  protests  against 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  were  directed  against 
the  scholasticism  and  gnosticism  of  some 
rabbis,  and  against  the  hypocrisy  and  cor- 
ruption of  others,  especially  in  high  places. 

Therefore  the  liberal  and  humane  ten- 
dencies of  the  apostles  created  no  particular 
sensation  in  Judea  ;  nor  were  they  any  way 
sufficient  to  render  acceptable  to  the  He- 
brew mind  the  novel  doctrines  of  a  van- 
quished and  crucified  Messiah  and  Re- 
deemer and  a  resurrected  Savior  who 
should  appear  again,  after  his  death,  to  re- 
store the  throne  of  David,  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  the  glory  of  Israel. 

New  in  the  apostles'  creed,  was  their 
supposed  contempt  of  the  learning  and  the 
learned,  of  wealth  and  the  possessors  of 
wealth.  In  direct  and  diametrical  opposi- 
tion to  the  gnostic  Pharisees,  they  pressed 
the  principle  of  love  to  its  utmost  conse- 
quences. There  was  great  wealth  in  Jeru- 
salem and  great  corruption  among  the 
wealthy,  in  which  the  royal  family  of  the 
Herodians  took  the  lead.  Therefore,  it  was 
natural  to  identify  wealth  and  corruption, 
as  the  apostles  did.  We  have  seen  already 
a  number  of  causes,  additional  to  the  com- 
mon one,  why  the  wealthy  portion  of  the 
Hebrew  people  had  a  much  better  educa- 
tion than  the  poor.  This  state  of  affairs, 
so  easily  discernible  to  the  readers  of  his- 
tory, identified  in  the  minds  of  the  apos- 
tles, wealth,  knowledge  and  corruption; 


272  ORIGIN  OF 

and  they  opposed  each  of  the  three  from 
the  principle  of  love  which  needs  no  knowl- 
edge and  no  wealth  :  being  wealthy  enough 
and  informed  enough  within  itself,  and  in 
consequence  of  its  selt-sufflciency  loathes 
the  corruption  of  man. 

The  apostles  are  not  supposed  to  have 
invented  this  new  feature  of  their  creed, 
they,  indeed,  invented  very  little— it  is  as- 
cribed to  their  master.  John  fails  not  to 
narrate  an  incident  with  an  opportunity  to 
state  that  Jesus  never  learned  any  thing. 
He  tells  us  (vii,  14)  that  Jesus,  about  the 
midst  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  went  up 
to  the  temple  and  taught.  "  And  the  Jews 
marveled,  saying:  How  knoweth  this  man 
letters,  having  never  learned?  Jesus  an- 
swered them,  and  said:  My  doctrine  is  not 
mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.  If  any  man 
will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doc- 
trine, whether  it  be  of  God  or  whether  I 
speak  of  myself."  All  this  is  intended  to 
state  that  Jesus  had  not  learned  any  thing  ; 
whatever  he  knew  or  spoke  was  direct  rev- 
elation from  on  high,  or  rather  knowledge, 
eo  ipse,  appertaining  to  the  nature  of  the 
Son  of  God.  Jesus  himself  certainly  never 
alleged  the  absurdity,  that  a  person  may 
know  every  thing  without  having  learned 
any  thing.  The  synoptics  knew  nothing  of 
this  story.  They  knew  not  that  Jesus  ever 
was  or  preached  in  Jerusalem,  previous  to 
his  last  days,  except  Luke,  who  (ii,  41)  in- 
forms us  that  the  parents  of  Jesus  went  to 
Jerusalem  annually  to  be  there  during  the 


»  CHRISTIANITY.  273 

feast  of  Passover.  When  Jesus  was  twelve 
years  of  age  he  went  with  them  to  Jerusa- 
lem. When  they  left,  he  remained  there, 
and  was  found  after  three  days  in  the  tem- 
ple, "sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  doctors, 
both  hearing  them  and  asking  them  ques- 
tions. And  all  that  heard  him  were  aston- 
ished at  his  understanding  and  answers." 
Luke  evidently  intends  to  tell  us  that  Jesus 
did  learn  of  some  doctors  whom  he  heard 
and  understood,  and  praises  his  inquisi- 
tiveness  and  quick  perception,  no  less  than 
hia  natural  talerits. 

John,  however,  insists  upon  his  theory, 
and  not  only  maintains  that  Jesus  himself 
learned  nothing,  but  also  that  his  followers 
were  a  class  of  ignorant  persons.  So  he 
says  (vi,  45),  in  a  story  again  unknown  to 
the  synoptics,  that  the  officers  who  were 
dispatched  to  arrest  Jesus  refused  to  do  so, 
and  returning  to  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees,  who  had  sent  them,  they  said : 
"  Never  man  spake  like  this  man."  This 
is  the  cause  of  the  following  admonition  to 
them:  "  Are  ye  also  deceived?  Have  any 
of  the  rulers  or  of  the  Pharisees  believed 
in  him  ?  Only  this  people  which  know 
nothing  of  the  law  ;  may  it  be  accursed."* 
The  intention  oi  John  in  this  statement  is 
manifest.  He  tells  us  that  the  learned  were 
the  enemies  of  Jesus,  and  the  illiterate  were 
his  followers  and  admirers.  Ho  imitates 


*  The  common  English  version  made  havoc  of  this 
verse,  so  that  it  is  devoid  of  all  sense.  A  glance  upon 
the  Greek  original  will  convince  any  scholar  that  our 
translation  is  correct. 


274  ORIGIN  OF 

well  in  this  passage  the  very  words,  which 
a  gnostic  rabbi  would  have  spoken,  con- 
cerning the  Am  Haarcts,  the  people,  "which 
know  nothing  of  the  law  ;"  but  he  forgets 
that  net  all  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees 
belonged  to  that  class. 

Matthew  also  calls  the  people  of  Nazareth 
to  witness,  that  Jesus  had  learned  nothing. 
He  tells  us  (Matthew  xiii,  54), 

"  And  when  he  was  come  into  his  own 
country,  he  taught  them  in  their  syna- 
gogue, insomuch  that  they,  were  astonished, 
and  said:  .Whence  hath  this  man  this 
wisdom  and  these  mighty  works  ? 

"  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son?  is  not  his 
mother  called  Mary?  and  his  brethren, 
James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and  Judas  ? 

<l  And  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with 
us?  Whence,  then,  hath  this  man  all 
these  things? 

*'  And  they  were  offended  in  him.  But 
Jesus  said,  unto  them :  A  prophet  is  not 
without  honor,  save  in  his  own  country, 
and  in  his  own  house." 

It  is  rather  naive  of  Matthew  to  inform 
us  in  conclusion,  "And  he  (Jesus)  did  not 
manjr  mighty  works  there  because  of  their 
unbelief,"  to  convince  us  that  the  critical 
understanding  and  practical  knowledge 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrines  and 
miracles  of  Jesus.  They  were  matters  of 
faith,  intelligible  to  the  ignorant  and  cred- 
ulous only. 

Take  the  gist  of  all  these  statements  and 
turn  to  Matthew  xiii,  10,  where  it  is  nar- 


CHRISTIANITY.  275 

rated  that  the  disciples  asked  Jesus,  \vby 
he  spoke  in  obscure  and  unintelligible  par- 
ables to  the  "great  multitudes,"  who  "were 
gathered  together  around  him,"  for  the 
specific  purpose  of  listening  to  his  words. 
To  this  he  replied  :  "  Because  it  is  given 
unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not 
given."  Expound  this  as  you  please,  and 
it  will  always  say  the  same  thing,  viz.: 
Only  the  ignorant,  the  Am  Haarctx,  who 
believe  on  me  unconditionally,  know  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The 
rest  of  the  people  who  think,  doubt,  inquire 
and  judge,  in  fact  the  knowing  ones,  will 
never  understand  or  believe  those  myste- 
ries. 

Consistent  with  this  theory,  Matthew  in- 
forms us  (Matt.  xi.  25)  that  Jesus  prayed: 
"  T  thank  thee,  O,  Father,  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth,  because  thoti  hast  hid  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and 
hast  revealed  tliem  unto  babes.  Even  so, 
Father,  for  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 
So  Jesus  himself,  we  are  told,  thanked  God, 
the  source  and  center  of  all  understanding., 
for  the  ignorance  of  the  people,  especially 
of  the  ill  fate  which  he  prophesied  over  the 
cities  of  Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capern- 
aum, as  we  read  in  the  preceding  verses. 
The  gist  of  the  prayer  is,  that  the  ignorant 
babes  know  more  than  the  wise  and  pru- 
dent. 

We  turn,  now,  to  the  sermon  on  the 
mount,  and  hear  Jesus  utter  as  the  first  of 


276  OinaiN  OF 

all  blessings,  to  be  ignorant:  "  Blessed  are 
the  poor  in  spirit,  for  their's  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  (Matthew  v,  3.)  There  is  no 
possibility  to  understand  this  any  way  but 
to  the  one  effect,  viz.:  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  for  the  ignorant,  for  the  Am 
Haarets  only  and  exclusively.  Thus,  ig- 
norance is  the  first  condition  of  salvation. 
Luke,  who  has  Jesus  learn  of  the  doctors 
and  let  him  be  a  marvel  at  the  age  of  twelve 
does  not  like  this  idea  altogether;  and  as 
he  has  taken  the  liberty  to  change  the  ser- 
mon on  the  mount  to  the  sermon  on  the 
plain,  on  another  occasion,  at  another  place 
and  time,  to  omit,  to  add  and  to  change  ad 
libitum,  he  changes  also  this  blessing  into 
"  Blessed  be  you,  ye  poor,  for  your's  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  (Luke  vi,  20.)  But 
we  have  seen  above  that  the  ignorant  and 
the  poor  were  nearly  identical  with  the 
Evangelists.  It  is  not  only  the  learned 
man  who  is  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  the  rich  man  suffers  the  same 
fate.  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, "said  Jesus 
to  his  disciples,  "that  a  rich  man  shall 
hardly  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  again  I  say  unto  3"ou,  It  is  easier  for  a 
camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle, 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  (Matt,  xix,  23.)  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  David,  Solomon 
and  a  host  of  other  Scriptural  worthies 
were  very  rich  ;  but  it  makes  no  difference, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  01113'  for  the  poor 
and  ignorant. 


CHRISTIANITY.  277 

From  all  this,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Evangelists  considered  ignorance  and  pov- 
erty the  necessary  attributes  of  a  person  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  that 
they  report  Jesus  to  have  said  so  on  various 
occasions ;  that  ignorance  and  poverty 
swayed  a  sovereign  scepter  in  Christendom 
when  the  Gospels,  or  those  portions  there- 
of, were  written.  But  the  question  with  us 
is,  Did  the  apostles  advance,  or  indorse,  or 
enlarge  this  doctrine? 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  takes  partic- 
ular occasion  to  inform  us,  that  it  was 
known  to  the  rulers,  elders,  scribes  and 
chief  priests,  how  Peter  and  John,  the 
chiefs  of  the  twelve,  "  were  unlearned  and 
ignorant  men."  (Acts  iv,  13.)  Still,  this 
proves  not  that  they  were.  It  is  Luke  who 
says  so,  and  he  did  not  see  them.  It  proves 
that  in  the  time  of  Luke  both  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  were  considered  ignorant  men. 
James  (Epistle  II,  2)  says:  "Hearken,  'my 
beloved  brethren  ;  hath  not  God  chosen  the 
poor  (Ebionim)  of  this  worltl,  rich  in  faith, 
and  heirs  of  the  kingdom,  which  he  has 
promised  to  them  that  love  him?"  Then 
he  exhorts  his  brethren,  because  they  de- 
spise the  poor.  But  here  no  mention  is 
made  of  the  ignorant.  Paul,  as  we  shall 
see  hereafter,  went  to  the  extreme  in  this 
matter,  and  he  had  good  reason  for  it. 

It  is  but  natural  to  suppose  that  Jesus 
was  not  an  ignorant  man.  It  is  unnatural 
to  suppose  that  a  Hebrew  rabbi,  traveling 
about  the  country  with  his  disciples,  as 


278  ORIGIN  OF 

other  rabbis  of  those  days  did,  in  an  age 
when  it  was  held  that  "  the  crown  of  the 
law  "  was  greater  than  the  "  crown  of  the 
king  and  the  crown  of  the  priest,"  should 
be  ignorant,  or  if  he  was,  that  he  should 
confess  it.  It  is  no  less  unnatural  to  sup- 
pose that  the  teacher  should  call  his  disci- 
ples ignorant,  or  that  the  disciples  of  a 
venerated  teacher  should  consider  them- 
selves ignorant.  Whatever  Mr.  Renan  says 
in  this  respect  is  the  result  of  a  romantic 
imagination,  not  of  historical  research. 
Ignorance,  as  we  have  seen  before  in  nu- 
merous quotations,  was  ignominy  at  that 
time  and  in  that  country.  If  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  had  been  ignorant,  their  oppo- 
nents, the  rabbis,  must  have  brought  this 
charge  against  them.  In  this  matter  their 
silence  amounts  to  a  demonstration. 

The  fact  appears  to  be  this:  Jesus,  in  op- 
position to  the  scholasticism  and  gnosticism 
of  one  class  of  rabbis,  teachers,  judges, 
priests,  senators,  leaders  and  others,  hav- 
ing decided  in  faVor  of  LOVE,  and  against 
the  GNOSIS,  naturally  favored  the  poor  and 
the  ignorant.  His  disciples  may  have  been 
poor  from  the  very  beginning,  and  ignorant; 
but  after  having  received  instruction  from 
their  master  for  several  years,  they  could 
have  been  ignorant  no  longer.  After  his 
death, the]apostles  must  have  greatly  enrich- 
ed their  stock  of  knowledge  before  they  en- 
tered upon  a  public  career.  When  they  came 
before  the  public,  they  appealed  to  the  poor 
and  ignorant,becausethe  rich  and  the  learn- 


CHRISTIANITY.  279 

ed  would  not  listen  to  them.  This  appeal 
was  in  perfect  consonance  with  the  doctrine 
of  their  master.  In  consideration  of  what 
we  know  already,  how  small  the  disputes  of 
the  scholastic  rabbis  were ;  it  was  not  very 
difficult  to  ridicule  them  and  expose  them 
to  contempt  in  the  estimation  of  the  masses. 
Again,  in  consideration  of  the  hatred  which 
the  gnostic  rabbis  expressed  against  the 
Am  Haarets,  the  ignorant  masses,  it  must 
have  been  easy  to  gain  their  attention  and 
their  affections.  Therefore,  the  apostles 
appealing  to  the  poor  and  ignorant,  as- 
sumed voluntary  poverty  with  the  poor, 
and  ignorance  with  the  ignorant.  But 
when  Paul  came  to  the  Gentiles,  where 
poverty,  ignorance,  crime  and  infamy  were 
the  rule,  while  purity  and  wisdom  were 
the  exception,  (See  Romans  i,  18,  etc.,)  and 
their  knowledge  itself  was  a  crime,  because 
it  was  a  lie  ;  then  and  there  ignorance  be- 
came a  virtue,  and  it  was  sanctioned  as 
such  by  Paul.  The  Evangelists,  as  they 
frequently  did,  gave  to  Jesus  that  which 
belonged  to  Paul,  or  to  Peter  that  which 
belonged  to  Jesus. 

The  good  of  all  that  was,  to  preach  hu- 
manity to  the  barbarians  and  semi-barba- 
rians. Love,  humanity,  charity  and  lib- 
erality, justice  and  righteousness  can  not 
be  preached  too  much  or  too  emphatically. 
Lessons  of  this  kind  are  intelligible  to  the 
simplest  man,  even  to  the  child,  and  convey 
a  principal  lesson  of  true  religion  to  the 
mind  and  to  the  heart.  However  corrupt 


280  ORIGIN  OF 

the  Church  was  in  after  times,  when  cru- 
sades, inquisitions  and  fanatics  spread 
death  and  desolation  in  the  name  of  re- 
ligion, strangled,  roasted  or  buried  alive 
the  victims  of  mad  fanaticism  in  behalf  of 
religion  ;  Jesus  and  the  apostles  taught  no 
such  things.  They  clung  to  Love  as  the 
first  principle.  The  fault  was  in  the  excess 
and  onesidedness  to  which  the  principle 
was  pressed.  If  ignorance  is  a  virtue  and 
the  understanding  is  a  nonentity,  then  judg- 
ment is  suspended  and  the  passions  sup- 
ported by  the  imagination  reign  supreme. 

Therefore,  Ceisus  (Origen.c.  Celsus  i,  9) 
accuses  tho  primitive  Christians  that  they 
demand  blind  faith,  that  they  declare  wis- 
dom as  an  evil,  and  laud  folly  as  a  desira- 
ble possession.  Origenes  denies  this,  but  his 
argument  is  feeble,  after  one  has  read  the 
passages  of  the  Gospels  which  we  quoted 
before,  and  the  words  of  Paul  (Epis.  I.  Cor. 
iii,  18,  etc.),  where  he  says:  "If  any  man 
among  you  seemeth  to  be  wise  in  this 
world,  let  him  become  a  fool  that  he  may 
be  wise." 

Therefore,  Tertullian,  another  early 
father  of  the  Church,  says,  concerning  phi- 
losophy :  "What  has  Athens  to  do  with 
Jerusalem  ?  The  academy  with  the  Church  ? 
Our  institution  is  from  the  porch  of  Solo- 
mon, who  has  himself  taught  to  seek  the 
Lord  in  simplicity  of  the  heart.  May 
those  who  got  up  a  stoic,  platonic  or  dia- 
lectic Christianity,  look  out  for  themselves. 
We  have  no  curiosity  besides  that  of  Christ ; 


CHRISTIANITY.  281 

we  need  no  research  besides  the  Gospels. 
When  we  believe,  we  need  no  more ;  be- 
cause we  do  believe  that  we  must  not  go 
beyond  this  belief.— Let  all  .curiosity  be 
subjected  to  faith,  and  all  glory  to  salva- 
tion. To  know  nothing  against  the  .rules 
of  faith  (the  dogmas)  is  synonymous  with 
knowing  every  thing.''-  Therefore,  the 
same  Tertullian  could  exclaim  :  "  I  rever- 
ence it  (Christianity),  because  it  is  con- 
temptible; I  adore  it,  because  it  is  absurd; 
I  believe  it,  because  it  is  impossible."! 

Therefore,  the  Christian  emperors,  Con- 
stantine  and  Theodosius,  commanded, 
"  that  all  writings  adverse  to  the  claims  of 
the  Christian  religion,  in  the  possession  of 
whomsoever  they  should  be  found,  should 
be  committed  to  the  fire." 

Therefore,  also  the  pious  Mosheim  (Ec- 
cles.  history,  4th  centu.)  feels  obliged  to 
state,  "It  is  certain  that  the  «. 1 eater 
part  both  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters, 
were  men  entirely  destitute  of  learning 
and  education.  Besides,  that  savage  and 
illiterate  party,  who  looked  upon  all  sorts 
of  erudition,  particularly  that  of  a  philo- 
sophical kind,  as  pernicious,  and  even  de- 
structive of  true  piety  and  religion,  in- 
creased both  in  number  and  authority. 
The  ascetics,  monks  and  hermits  augment- 
ed the  strength  of  this  barbarous  faction, 
and  not  only  the  women,  but  also  all  who 


*  Tertull.  de  prseter,  haeret,  7,  8, 14. 
t  Tertull.   de   Came   Christ,  Semi,    llagdel,    1770, 
Vol.  3,  p.  352. 

19 


282  OBIGIN  OF 

took  solemn  looks,  sordid  garments,  and  a 
love  of  solitude,  for  real  piety,  (and  in  this 
number  w$  comprehend  the  generality  of 
mankind)  were  vehemently  prepossessed 
in  their  favor." 

Therefore,  the  Church  always  was  the 
great  enemy  of  free  thought,  free  research, 
original  ideas  and  novel  doctrines,  and 
constituted  herself  the  superior  and  chief 
arbiter  to  sovereign  understanding.  All 
these  lamentable  and  melancholy  crimes 
of  the  Church,  however,  are  the  legitimate 
offspring  from  the  onesided  principle  of 
£ove,  to  the  detriment  and  disregard  of 
understanding,  knowledge,  learning  and 
philosophy. 

It  is  as  it  were  but  yesterday  that  a 
Christian  defender  of  the  Christian  dog- 
matics, by  appointment  of  the  Oxford 
(England)  university,  rendered  the  follow- 
ing verdict  on  philosophy : 

"  It  has  done  little  for  the  world.  It  has 
not  one  practical  triumph  to  show.  It  has 
discovered  no  new  truth  ;  it  has  inaugu- 
rated no  new  principle ;  it  has  produced  no 
new  element  of  good.  It  can  not  point  to 
one  of  life's  many  evils  either  removed  by 
its  strength  or  alleviated  by  its  influence. 
It  has  achieved  no  triumph  of  civilization, 
no  trophy  of  human  happiness.  Were  the 
whole  swept  away,  we  should  not  lose  any 
abiding  or  substantial  benefit.  Were  all 
else  swept  away  and  it  left  alone,  we 
should  sink  into  absolute  ignorance  ;  and 
should  not  possess  one  fixed  truth  to  ele- 
vate human  nature  by  its  dignity,  or  bless 
it  by  its  beneficent  infiuence.g 

I  The  Dogmatic  Faith  ;  an  inquiry,  etc.,  by  Edw. 
Garbet,  M.  A. 


CHRISTIANITY.  283 

If  it  is  deplorable  that  the  scholastic  and 
the  gnostic  rabbis  have  inflicted  burning 
sores  on  the  cause  of  true  religion,  and  the 
latter  have  declared  war  to  one  of  the  ho- 
liest interests  of  humanity  ;  it  is  certainly 
no  less  deplorable  that  the  apostles  gave 
sanction  to  a  doctrine  which,  by  its  corrup- 
tion, has  cost  mankind  more  blood  and 
tears  than  all  the  battle-fields,  and  has 
arrested  a  thousand  times  the  wheels  of 
progress.  With  the  apostles  the  adoption 
of  this  principle  was  partly  a  policy,  partly 
a  sacred  heritage,  and  partly  a  necessity. 
But  coming  centuries  made  a  curse  of  it, 
which  still  hangs  heavily  upon  the  entire 
Christendom. 

Being  acquainted  with  the  cardinal 
points  in  the  apostles'  creed,  we  have  but 
little  to  add  to  enable  us  to  proceed  with 
the  examination  into  the  further  develop- 
ments of  primitive  Christianity.  They 
believed  in  the  resurrection  and  a  last  day 
of  judgment,  as  all  the  Pharisees  did,  and 
like  them  expressed  it,  vague  and  indefi- 
nitely, so  that  neither  the  Gospels  nor  the 
Talmud  afford  any  insight  into  the  precise 
nature  of  that  doctrine.  The  rabbis  of  the 
Talmud  maintained  that  the  prophets 
themselves  failed  to  have  a  definite  idea 
thereof,  and  say:  "All  the  prophesies  of 
the  prophets  reach  to  the  days  of  the  Mes- 
siah ;  but  the  future  world,  '  No  eye  hath 
seen  except  thine,  O,  Lord.'  " 

The  rabbis  of  those  days  held  conflicting 
opinions  in  this  matter.     Some  believed 
19* 


284  OJRIGIN  OF 

that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  and  the  last  day  of 
judgment  will  be  simultaneous  events. 
This  appears  to  have  been  also  the  belief 
of  the  apostles,  that  the  second  advent  of 
Jesus  would  also  bring  on  the  resurrection 
and  the  judgment;  and  based  upon  this 
they  admonished  the  living  to  repentance  ; 
whereas  the  day  of  judgment  was  consid- 
ered nigh,  at  least  to  some  of  them.  Other 
rabbis  of  that  age  who  considered  the  Mes- 
siah a  political  personage,  of  course,  de- 
tached those  events  into  different  periods 
of  time ;  and  this  became  afterwards  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  all  rabbinical  Jews.*' 
There  were,  undoubtedly,  representatives 
of  this  opinion,  also,  among  the  earlier  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus,  who  did  not  expect  the 
resurrection  and  the  judgment  to  come  on 
with  the  second  advent.  Both  these  doc- 
trines are  expressed  in  the  New  Testament; 
so  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  what  the 
twelve  taught  in  this  matter. 

The  belief  in,  and  the  frequent  corre- 
spondence with,  angels  as  well  as  the  cen- 
obitical  and  communistic  mode  of  living, 
the  apostle?  took  from  the  Essenes  who,  as 
Josephus  informs  us,  were  quite  familiar 
with  the  host  of  heaven.  The  Pharisees 
also  had  their  extensive  augelology ;  but 
their  admission,  that  "  the  names  of  the 
angels  were  brought  up  from  Babel,"  that 
they  knew  nothing  about  them  through 


Maimonides,  Yad.  H.  Theehubah. 


CHBISTIANITi'.  285 

the  prophets  or  other  Hebrew  sources, 
must  have  depreciated  the  mystic  knowl- 
edge in  their  own  estimation. 

Thus  we  may  put  it  down  as  a  fact  that 
the  apostles  and  their  followers  in  no  wise 
distinguished  themselves  from  other  Jews, 
either  in  their  mode  of  worship,  living  and 
teaching,  or  in  their  religious  belief,  pre- 
tensions and  superstitions,  except  in  tho 
point  of  the  crucified  Messiah  and  the  doc- 
trines which  they  connected  with  that 
event.  Like  all  persons  who  live  in  and 
for  an  idea — especially  a  religious  one — 
they  became  very  pious,  taciturn,  thought- 
ful and  visionary.  Like  many  other  sons 
of  that  sunny  climate  they  were  governed 
more  by  the  imagination  and  sentiments 
than  by  legitimate  thought.  Like  all  other 
Galileans,  they  must  have  been  looked 
upon  as  being  ignorant,  especially  on  ac- 
count of  the  jargon,  the  corrupt  dialect, 
with  which  all  Galileans  were  reproached. 
In  all  other  respects  they  were  orthodox 
Jews. 

If  the  apostles  had  been  ignorant  men 
^they  must  have  learned  something  of 
their  master  during  the  years  they  were 
with  him)  they  could  certainly  not  have 
been  stupid  persons  ;  for  they  followed  u^p 
a  fixed  purpose — to  graft  a  new  element 
upon  the  religion  of  their  country.  This 
requires  both  knowledge  and  forethought. 
It  requires  much  more  deliberation  and 
study  than  one  might  suppose,  after  a  cur- 
sory glance  on  the  subject.  It  is  true,  they 


286  ORIGIN  OF 

did  not  succeed  among  their  countrymen, 
and  we  have  seen  the  reasons  of  this  fail- 
ure ;  but  they  did  not  fail  altogether.  They 
succeeded  in  forming  a  congregation,  how- 
ever small  it  was,  in  Jerusalem,  and  under 
the  very  eyes  of  all  her  learned  citizens. 
There  were  Christians  outside  of  the  capital 
also,  in  Palestine,  and  there  were  some  in 
Damascus,  among  the  Jews,  before  the  ad- 
vent of  Paul.  Most  important,  however, 
in  this  respect,  is  the  admission  of  the  Tal- 
mud :  that  the  great  Rabbi,  Elieser  ben 
Hyrcanus,  was  almost  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity by  the  apostle  James,  who  was  re- 
puted among  them  for  healing  diseases, 
and  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  The  Midrash 
(Kabbah  to  Koheloth)  also  tells  the  story 
of  one  Hanina,  the  nephew  of  the  cele- 
brated Rabbi  Joshua,  who  joined  the 
Christians  of  Capernaum,  and  was  re- 
claimed by  his  uncle.  Further  on  the  same 
book  mentions  many  other  converts.  Rab- 
bi Aisi,  of  Cesarea,  it  appears,  knew  sev- 
eral of  them  among  the  learned  rabbis. 
The  apostles  gained  Paul  over  to  their 
side;  and  this  shows  that  they  were  not 
altogether  unsuccessful.  Josephus  men- 
tions not  the  successes  of  the  apostles,  be- 
cause in  his  time  Christianity  was  in  its 
v*ery  infancy,  and  must  have  appeared 
scarcely  worth  notice  among  the  numerous 
large  sects  which  he  saw.  The  first  activity 
of  the  apostles,  as  we  have  seen  above, 
must  be  set  about  50  to  60  A.  C.,  and  their 
main  work  begins  still  later;  hence,  Jo- 


CHRISTIANITY.  287 

sepbus,  who  did  not  return  to  Palestine 
after  70  A.  C.,  could  know  but  little,  if 
any  thing,  of  them.  Still  to  attract  the  at- 
tention of  Paul  and  Rabbi  Elieser,  to  gain 
the  former  and  almost  win  the  latter, 
knowledge  and  deliberation  on  the  part  of 
the  apostles  must  be  admitted  by  all  who 
do  not  ascribe  such  things  to  miracles. 
The  apostles  spent  years  in  Galilee  after 
the  death  of  their  master,  to  mature  their 
plan  ;  and  when  they  returned  to  Jerusa- 
lem, to  enter  upon  a  public  mission,  they 
must  have  come  prepared  in  a  certain 
measure. 

This  leads  to  another  inquiry.  Did  the 
apt>stles  possess  a  written  Gospel,  a  biog- 
raphy of  their  master,  or  an  abstract  of 
his  lessons?  One  might  conjecture,  that 
during  their  stay  at  home,  in  Galilee,  they 
may  have  prepared  such  notes  or  such  a 
synopsis.  The  passages,  especially  in  the 
three  synoptical  Gospels,  which  are  almost 
literally  alike,  point  to  an  older  Gospel 
from  which  all  copied  those  passages.  Was 
such  a  synopsis  in  the  hands  of  the  apos- 
tles? The  prejudices  of  that  age  did 
not  favor  such  a  work.  Among  the  rabbis, 
as  we  have  mentioned  before,  there  was  a 
settled  prejudice  against  writing  down 
their  own  words,  so  much  so  that  they 
called  the  notes  which  were  made  by 
some  Meguillath  Setharim,  "secret  rolls." 
Still,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  informed 
that  Hillel  W7rote  a  large  compendium  of 
the  statute  law,  and  a  book  on  the  Macca- 


288  ORIGIN  OF 

bees.  Although  there  being  no  trace  left 
of  those  works,  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  Hillel  actually  did  write  any  thing  ; 
still  the  assertion  proves  that  the  prej- 
udice against  writing  was  not  considered  a 
general  rule  without  exception.  Besides 
the  Meguillath  Taanith,  "the  roll  of  the 
fast  days,"  the  book  in  which  historical 
events  are  described,  which  were  the  cause 
of  days  of  fast  and  other  days  of  feast, 
Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Levi  mentions  two  kinds 
of  books  which  existed  in  his  time,  Siphrei 
Berachoth,  "  the  books  of  benedictions  "— 
prayer  books — and  /Siphrei  Agadah,  "  the 
books  of  moral  treatises,"  especially  ser- 
mons and  exhortations  based  on  Scriptural 
texts  and  historical  events,  or,  also,  on  le- 
gends and  fables.*  The  rabbi  expresses 
himself  strongly  opposed  to  those  books  ; 
nevertheless,  they  existed,  and  this  rabbi 
was  a  cotemporary  of  the  apostles,  and 
like  them  he  wrought  miracles.  Again, 
the  casuistic  controversies  in  the  Mishnah, 
as  to  which  books  may  be  saved  from  a 
conflagration  on  Sabbath,  and  which  may 
not ;  which  books  render  the  hands  im- 
pure, and  which  do  not ;  and  the  Sepharim 
Hachitsonim,  "  the  profane  books,"  men- 
tioned by  Rabbi  Akiba,  testify  to  the  fact 
that  many  books  circulated  among  the 

*  Yerushalml,  Sabbath  XVI.  In  one  of  these 
books  Rabbi  Joshua  beri  Levi  saw  the  statement, 
which  did  not  at  all  appear  new  to  him,  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  divided  into  175  chapters,  and  the  Psalms 
into  147  chapters.  The  division  of  the  Pentateuch 
into  chapters  and  verses  is  frequently  mentioned  In 
the  Talmud  ;  as  for  instance,  Parcshath  Melech,  Pare- 
shath  Acfiere  Moth,  Pareshath  Hakhcl,  &c. 


CHRISTIANITY.  289 

Hebrews  of  those  days,  although  the  rabbis 
entertained  no  great  admiration  for  them. 

It  is,  therefore,  possible  enough  that  the 
apostles  wrote  some  biographical  sketches 
of  their  master  and  a  synopsis  of  his  teach- 
ings; but  we  have  no  testimony  on  hand 
to  prove  the  fact.  On  the  contrary,  Paul 
invariably  maintains  that  he  bad  another 
gospel,  not  received  of  man,  hence,  also, 
not  of  the  apostles.  Not  only  his  doctrines 
but  even  his  account  of  the  resurrection 
differs  entirely  from  those  of  the  apostles. 
Had  they  been  in  possession  of  any  writ- 
ten accounts,  Paul  could  not  possibly  have 
produced  a  new  gospel  with  new  doctrines, 
entirely  different  from  those  of  the  eye- 
witnesses, who  had  lived  with  their  master 
for  years  and  had  heard  his  lessons. 

Two  ancient  passages  of  the  Talmud 
must  be  considered  in  this  connection. 
The  first  occurs  in  three  different  works 
with  some  slight  variations.!  It  reads 
thus: 

"The  rolls  of  parchment  (consecrated  to 
write  the  Pentateuch  thereon)  and  THE 

BOOKS  OF  THE   TSADDUKIM   (or    MlNIM)   are 

not  saved  from  conflagration  on  Stobbatb. 
Rabbi  Jose  adds:  On  week  days  the  holy 
names  (of  God)  should  be  cut  out  (of  the 
books)  and  removed,  and  the  rest  should 
be  burned."  But  Rabbi  Tarphon,  whose 
name  we  have  mentioned  before  as  a  young- 
er cotemporary  of  the  apostles,  he  said : 

t  Yerushalmi  Sabbath  XVI;   Sabli  Sabbath  116  a; 
Tasephta  XI  (in  some  editions  XIV.) 


290  ORIGIN  OP 

u  If  they  (those  books)  should  ever  come  to 
ray  hands,  I  would  surely  burn  them  with 
the  holy  names  in  thorn.  Even  it'  a  man 
should  pursue  one  to  kill  him,  or  a  serpent 
pursue  him  to  bite  him,  he  should  rather 
seek  refuge  in  a  temple  of  heathens  than 
to  enter  the  temples  of  those ;  for  these 
know  and  deny,  and  those  know  not  and 
deny." 

These  books  of  the  TSADDUKIM,  or  MIN- 
IM, as  the  Yerushalfni  has  it,  are  called  by 
Rabbi  Mair,  AVONGELION,  and  by  Rabbi 
Johanan,  EVANGELION.J  This  notice  is,  of 
course,  an  addition  from  a  more  recent 
date  ;  still  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
ancient  passage  of  the  Talmud  refers  to 
the  existence  of  some  Christian  Scriptures 
in  the  age  of  the  apostles.  The  tone  in 
which  they  speak  of  it  leads  us  to  believe 
they  referred  to  the  epistles  of  Paul.  They 
start  with  a  law,  which  shows  neither 
hatred  nor  even  any  objection  to  those 
Christian  Scriptures.  They  recognized 
them  as  existing  books,  and  treated  them 
neither  better  nor  worse  than  other  books, 
as  they  would  not  allow  to  save  any  from 
a  conflagration  on  the  Sabbath,  not  even 
pray  erBooks.  But  then  comes  Rabbi  Jose, 
who  lived  after  Paul,  who  wants  to  see 
them  burned  after  the  holy  names  are  cut 
out.  But  then  without  reference  to  chron- 
ological order,  Rabbi  Tarphon's  decree  isin- 

t  See  Sabli  Sabbath.  116  a.  Edit.  Amsterdam, 
1645.  It  is  omitted  in  the  edition,  Vienna,  1844,  and 
is  only  mentioned  in  part  in  the  large  En-Jacob,  edit. 
Fuerth. 


CHRISTIANITY.  291 

troduced,  to  burn  all  those  books,  i.  e.,  he 
would  do  so,  with  the  holy  names  therein. 
He  could  only  have  referred  to  the  epistles 
of  Paul,  in  which  the  son  of  God  and 
the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  laws  was 
taught  ;  while  the  older  law  referred  to 
some  apostolic  Scriptures,  probably  such 
as  the  epistle  of  James  and  the  like,  which 
have  been  lost. 

The  BOOKS  OF  THE  MIRAS  also  mentioned 
in  the  Talmud^(  Yadaim)  proves  nothing, 
for  it  may  refer  to  any  as  well  as  the  Chris- 
tian sect  of  that  name,  according  to  the 
signification  of  the  Greek  term. 

Another  ancient  passage  of  the  Talmud 
is  highly  interesting  in  this  direction.  In 
the  Yerushalmi,  (Sabbath  xii,  4,)  where  the 
rabbis  discuss  the  question  of  what  may 
be  called  writing  on  Sabbath  day,  which, 
of  course,  they  forbid  under  the  penalty  of 
death,  there  the  decision  is  made:  "If 
one  scratches  letters  on  a  skin,  he  is  not 
guilty.  But  Rabbi  Elieser  (our  guostical 
acquaintance)  said  to  them  :  "  DID  NOT  JE- 
SUS (BEN  SATDA)  BRING  NECROMANCY  FROM 
EGYPT  IN  THIS  VERY  SAME  MANNER  OF 
WRITING?"  (Hence  it  must  be  readable 
writing.)  Plere  is  an  undoubted  reference 
to  a  something  like  a  manuscript  of  Jesus 
himself,  then  \vell  known  among  the  rab- 
bis^ They  made  him  to  a  pupil  of  one 
Rabbi  Joshua,^  with  whom  he  went  to 
Egypt  and  learned  necromancy  there. 

§  The  "  ben  Perachiah  "  was  added  by  some  igno- 
rant transcriber. 


292  ORIGIN  OF 

What  that  necromancy  WHS,  nobody  can 
tell  in  our  days  ;  but  that  Jesus  was  a  pu- 
pil of  one  Rabbi  Joshua,  that  he  went  with 
him  to  Egypt,  that  he  learned  there  much 
of  the  Therapeuts,  and  that  in  the  days  of 
Rabbi  Elieser  something  like  a  manuscript 
of  Jesus,  scratched  on  skin,  was  extant, 
can  not  well  be  denied;  as  the  Talmud,  the 
most  impartial  witness  in  this  matter,  and 
there  again,  cotemporarics  of  the  apostles 
state  these  facts.  It  appears,  even,  that  Je- 
sus wrote  in  that  peculiar  manner,  on  ac- 
count of  the  prejudice  among  the  rabbis 
against  writing  books  or  notes. 

Still  the  Christians  of  the  first  and  sec- 
ond centuries  were  so  careless  about  manu- 
scripts, that  nothing  can  be  found  older 
than  the  epistles  of  Paul.  It  would  even 
appear  that  with  the  progress  of  Paul's 
doctrines  and  the  decline  of  apostolic 
Christianity,  ancient  books  and  manu- 
scripts contra  Paul  were  destroyed  or  got 
out  of  the  way  of  the  Gentile  congrega- 
tions. So  no  trace  is  left  of  apostolic  doc- 
uments, although  the  above  passages  from 
the  Talmud  show,  beyond  a  doubt,  that 
something  of  the  kind  must  have  existed. 

On  the  whole,  Christian  critics  of  the 
New  Testament  having  entirely  neglected 
the  Talmud,  the  only  written  documents 
from  the  apostolic  age,  could  not  give  the 
reader  a  clear  insight  into  the  origin  of 
Christianity.  They  have,  more  or  less, 
carried  modern  ideas  into  ancient  Jerusa- 
lem. So  is  Mr.  Kenan's  Jesus  a  Parisian 


CHRISTIANITY.  293 

fantast,    and    his    apostles   are   mediaeval 
monks. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  STEPHEN. 

The  most  notable  persons  among  those 
who  attached  themselves  to  the  primitive 
Christians,  were  Joseph  Hallevi,  whom  the 
apostles  called  Bar-naba,  the  "  son  of  elo- 
quence." The  next  was  Mason,  whose 
Hebrew  name  was  most  likely  Manassah. 
After  him  is  mentioned  one  John  Marc, 
the  cousin  of  Barnabas  and  son  of  a  wealthy 
woman,  called  Mary,  whom  we  mentioned 
in  the  sixth  chapter.  Next  to  them  two 
proselytes  of  weight  are  mentioned,  Stephen 
or  Stephanos  and  Philip. 

The  name  Stephanos,  "  the  crown,"  is  en- 
tirely unknown  to  Jewish  nomenclature. 
The  name  Kathriel,  "  the  crown  of  the 
Lord,"  is  known  in  angelology  only ;  as 
the  name  of  persons  either  in  its  Hebrew 
or  its  Grecian  form,  it  occurs  nowhere  in 
the  annals  of  ancient  Jews.  This  Stephen 
W7ith  his  novel  name  is  introduced  by  the 
author  of  "The  Acts  "  (vi  and  vii)  as  the 
first  steward  or  deacon  of  the  seven  ap- 
pointed to  control  the  secular  matters  of 
the  primitive  congregation,  an  Evangelist 
or  one  who  preached  the  new  religion,  and 
the  first  martyr;  the  story  of  Peter  and 


294  ORIGIN  OF 

James  reviewed  at  the  close  of  the  sixth 
chapter,  in  chronological  order,  succeeds 
the  story  of  Stephen's  maTtyrdorn. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  intends  to  in- 
form us  that  sometime  after  the  apostles 
had  been  beaten  before  the  Sanhedriii  and 
commanded  not  to  teach  the  name  of  Jesus, 
especially  not  in  the  thaumaturgy  and 
necromancy,  of  which  they  stood  accused, 
hence  sometime  after  50  A.  C.,  this  Stephen 
had  exciting  discussions,  not  with  the 
Pharisees  or  the  Sadducees,  as  usual,  but 
with  the  Libertines,  Cyrenians,  Alexan- 
drians, Cilicians  and  some  from  Asia 
Minor,  or  in  short  words,  with  Helenists, 
Greek  proselytes  and  liberated  slaves  who 
had  separate  synagogues  in  Jerusalem. 
We  are  not  informed  of  the  subject  matter, 
on  which  their  discussions  turned.  Their 
disputes  may  have  been  concerning  poli- 
tics, national  economy,  family  affairs,  or 
any  exciting  topic,  as  well  as  concerning 
any  religious  doctrine.  They  could  not 
resist  Stephen  in  the  argument,  and  so  they 
had  resort  to  a  mean  plot  of  revenge.  They 
employed  profligate  persons  to  accuse 
Stephen  of  having  heard  him  "speak  blas- 
phemous words  against  Moses  and  against 
God."  (Verse  11.)  The  laws  of  Israel  took 
no  cognizance  of  blasphemous  words 
against  Moses,  but  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts,"  it  appears,  did  not  know  it,  and  he 
continues  thus :  "  And  they  stirred  up  the 
people,  and  the  elders,  and  the  scribes,  and 
came  upon  him  (Stephen,)  and  caught  him, 


CHRISTIANITY.  295 

and  brought  him  to  the  council."  We  are 
not  told  what  kind  of  a  council  or  court  it 
was,  before  which  Stephen  was  to  be  tried. 
It  appears,  however,  from  the  first  verse  of 
the  seventh  chapter,  that  a  council  of  priests 
was  intended  by  the  author.  In  this  coun- 
cil of  priests  those  profligate  men  set  up 
FALSE  WITNESSES,  which  said  :  "  This  man 
ceaseth  not  to  speak  blasphemous  words 
against  this  holy  place,  and  this  law."  It  is 
no  longer  blasphemy  against  Moses  and 
against  God,  as  before;  the  matter  is 
changed  into  a  much  milder  form.  Blas- 
phemy against  God  is  a  capital  crime  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  Moses  ;  but  blas- 
phemy against  the  temple  and  the  law  is 
no  crime  mentioned  in  the  penal  code  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews.  The  case,  however, 
loses  all  its  force  by  the  explanation  which 
the  false  witnesses  add:  "For  we  have 
heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
shall  destroy  this  place  and  shall  change 
the  customs  which  Moses  delivered  us." 
There  can  be  no  blasphemy  in  this  state- 
ment. Jesus  was  dead  and  could  not  de- 
stroy the  temple,  and  if  Stephen  said  so,  it 
was  foolish,  but  it  was  no  crime.  Customs 
changed  so  frequently  in  Israel  that  nobody 
could  feel  offended  at  such  a  prediction. 
The  main  questions  here  are  these  :  If  false 
witnesses  were  hired,  why  did  they  not 
make  out  at  once  a  strong  and  sure  case, 
and  say,  this  Stephen  blasphemed  the  Lord 
in  saying  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  and 
God  Almighty  himself?  Answer.  Because 


293  OKIGIN  OF 

the  author  of  "The  Acts"  knew  well 
enough  that  nobody  before  Paul  said  so, 
and  because  he  did  not  know  the  Jewish 
laws.  The  accusation  of  destroying  the 
temple,  be  copied  from  Matthew  (xxvi,  61) 
and  Mark  (xiv,  58)  and  the  formula  of  accu- 
sation is  taken  from  I  Kings  xxi,  10,  as  the 
whole  matter  is  an  imitation  of  the  story  of 
Naboth  who  was  stoned  on  the  secret  in- 
structions of  Queen  Jezebel.  It  is  not  his- 
tory ;  it  is  imitation.  The  next  question 
is  why  did  the  witnesses  not  say  at  once, 
we  have  heard  Stephen  say,  the  Law  of 
Moses  is  abrogated,  hence  we  need  neither 
temple,  altar,  priest,  king,  ruler  or  court ; 
why  speak  of  the  customs  ?  Again  because 
Luke  knew  well  enough  that  nobody  be- 
fore Paul  ever  preached  such  a  doctrine. 
The  next  and  probably  mo.st  important 
question  is,  why  did  Stephen  not  contradict 
the  statement  of  'these  false  witnesses? 
Was  it  true  what  the  witnesses  stated,  then 
they  were  no  false  witnesses  ;  was  it  false, 
then  Stephen  defended  a  falsehood.  The 
author  of  "  The  Acts  "  is  here  in  a  threefold 
dilemma. 

Next  we  are  informed:  "And  all  that 
sat  in  the  council,  looking  steadfastly  at 
him,  (Stephen,)  saw  his  face  as  it  had  been 
the  face  of  an  angel."  This  expression  is 
borrowed  from  Genesis  xxxiii,  10,  and  sug- 
gests here  another  query:  If  the  face  of 
Stephen  made  so  extraordinary  an  impres- 
sion upon  all  that  sat  in  the  council,  how 
in  the  world  could  they  halt  an  hour  later 


CHRISTIANITY.  297 

fall  upon  him  like  brutes  or  fiends,  drag 
him  out  of  the  city  and  kill  him  ?  Human 
nature  is  incapable  *f  such  violent  and 
sudden  transitions.  He  who  appears  now 
an  angel  to  us,  can  not  be  deadly  obnoxious 
to  us  in  half  an  hour. 

Most  extraordinary,  besides  the  admis- 
sion of  the  false  testimony,  is  the  plea  of 
Stephen.  He  stands  before  the  highpriest 
and  his  council,  the  very  flower  of  the 
priesthood,  accused,  as  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts"  intended  to  make  out  the  case,  ac- 
cused of  blasphemy,  and  begins  his  plea, 
as  though  he  was  addressing  a  number  of 
schoolboys,  or  ignorant  heathens,  with 
telling  them  the  story  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob  and  Moses,  and  then  he  breaks  out 
in  a  flood  of  thoughtless  invectives.  In 
this  brief  and  tasteless  sketch  of  early  his- 
tory in  the  place  of  a  plea  he  makes  one 
blunder  after  the  other.  He  says  (vii,  2) 
that  God  appeared  to  Abraham  in  Meso- 
potamia, of  which  the  Bible  has  no  record. 
Then  he  calls  Palestine  (verse  4)  "  the  land 
wherein  ye  now  dwell,"  as  though  he  faad 
been  in  Rome  while  speaking  thus.  Then 
he  says  (verse  15)  Jacob  came  down  to 
Egypt  with  seventy-five  persons,  when  the 
Bible  repeatedly  states,  he  came  down  with 
seventy  only,  including  himself  and  Joseph 
with  his  sons,  calling  every  person  by 
name.  Next  he  states  (verse  16)  that  the 
remains  of  Jacob  and  hissons  were  brought 
up  to  Sychem  and  buried  in  the  place 
which  Abraham  bought  of  the  sons  of 
20 


298  ORIGIN  OF 

Hamor,  the  father  of  Sychem,  for  money  ; 
when  the  Bible  states  plainly  that  Abraham 
bought  the  cave  of  Machpelah  near  Hebron, 
a  place  known  as  such  to  this  Very  day, 
from  Ephron,  the  Hitite,  and  not  from 
Sychem  who  was  killed  together  with  his 
people  by  the  sons  of  Jacob ;  when  the 
Bible  furthermore  narrates  that  the  remains 
of  Jacob  were  buried  at  Hebron,  and  only 
the  remains  of  Joseph  were  brought  up 
from  Egypt  and  buried  in  Sychem  by 
Joshua.  Then  he  continues  in  reviewing 
the  story  of  the  Egyptian  bondage,  which, 
according  to  his  statement,  lasted  only  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  the  last  Pharaoh,  which 
arises  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  verse 
in  Exodus,  "  And  there  rose  a  new  king 
over  Egypt  who  knew  not  Joseph.""  Then 
without  any  good  ground  or  valid  reason, 
merely  because  one  Hebrew  said  to  Moses, 
"  Who  set  thee  as  a  man,  a  prince,  or  a 
judge  over  us  ?"  he  charges  on  all  the  people 
(verse  35,)  "  This  Moses  whom  they  refused, 
saying,  who  made  thee  a  ruler  or  judge? 
the  same  did  God  send  to  be  a  ruler  and  a 
deliverer  by  the  hand  of  the  angel  which 
appeared  to  him  in  the  bush." 

Any  reader  will  be  ready  to  admit  that 
this  part  of  Stephen's  speech  comes  not 
from  the  pen  of  u  Jew.  Any,  even  the  il- 
literate Jew  living  in  Palestine,  where  all 
those  Bible  sion^s  nro  living  traditions  con- 
nected with  well  known  localities,  must 
have  known  better.  None  can  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  one  could  rise  before  a  coun- 


CHRISTIANITY.  299 

cil  over  which  the  highpriest  presided  and 
make  such  awful  blunders  in  things  known 
to  the  children  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem, 
without  exciting  the  judges  to  laughter 
and  pity. 

Being  through  with  the  historical  sketch 
Stephen  gives  us  an  exposition  of  his  exe- 
getical  skill  which  is  no  less  unhappy  than 
his  historical  knowledge.  He  continues 
that  Moses  said  to  the  children  of  Israel 
(verse  37,)  "  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your 
God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren, 
like  unto  me,  him  shall  ye  hear."  We  can 
not  tell  what  connection  this  has  with  the 
praise  which  he  wishes  to  bestow  upon 
Moses,  when  he  quotes  the  words  which 
Moses  spoke  of  himself.  Nor  does  it  say  any 
thing  in  favor  of  Stephen,  unless  he  con- 
sidered himself  a  prophet,  which  he  does 
not  say.  Nor  does  it  justify  his  belief  in 
Jesus,  as  that  prophet  to  be  like  Moses 
could  not  be  superior  to  Moses.  But  he 
continues  in  the  praise  of  Moses, (verse  38) 
"  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spake  to 
him  in  the  Mount  Sinai,  and  with  our 
fathers :  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to 
give  unto  us."  According  to  the  Greek 
original  this  verse  should  read  thus:  "  This 
is  he  who  in  that  assembly  in  the  wilder- 
ness stood  as  a  mediator  between  the  angel 
who  spoke  to  him  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  be- 
tween our  fathers,  and  received  the  words 
of  life,  to  communicate  them  to  us."  This 
is  an  imitation  of  Deuteronomy  v.  5.  "  I 
20* 


-300  ORIGIN  OP 

was  standing  between  the  Lord  and  be- 
tween you  at  that  time,  to  announce  to 
you  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  with  the  only 
difference  >that  where  Stephen  speaks  of  an 
angel,  the  Bible  states  plainly  JEHOVAH 
which  neve*  signifies  any  being  besides  the 
One  and  ineffable  God,  Stephen  insists 
upon  this  theory  and  states  again  (verse 
53,)  "Who  have  received  the  law  by  the 
disposition  of  angels,  and  have  not  kept 
it."  This  was  either  a  mistake  or  it  was 
copied  from  the  Gnostics.  It  may  have  been 
plainly  a  mistake.  He  who  has  a  place  in  Sy- 
chem  for  the  cave  of  Machpelah  in  Hebron , 
and  has  all  the  fathers  buried  in  Sychein 
in. place  of  Joseph  alone,  may  also  have  an 
angel  in  place  of  Jehovah  as  a  mere  over- 
sight. But  then  it  must  not  be  maintained 
that  a  Jew  said  so  to  Jews,  when  it  is  stated 
.repeatedly  that  Jehovah  spoke  from  Sinai 
and  not  an  angel.  It  may  be  taken  from 
the  Gnostics  who  believed  in  the  dualism 
of  the  Deity.  Agreeable  to  pagan  concep- 
tions they  believed  in  the  ineffable  and 
incomprehensible  Most  High  God  Anotatos 
Thcos.  But  he  is  too  exalted  to  stand  in 
any  connection  with  the  physical  world. 
He  becomes  in  a  second  nature  the  Demi- 
ourgos,  the  creator  and  the  lawgiver  of  the 
Jews  or  Notnotketis,  whom  the  later  Gnos- 
tics, like  Valentine,  made  "a  god-like 
angel."  If  this  angel  of  Stephen  is  the  re- 
sult of  either  ignorance  or  gnosticism,  it 
proves  definitely,  that  he  never  spoke  that 
speech.  A  Jew  in  Palestine  could  not  be 


CHRISTIANITY.  301 

so  ignorant,  norcould  he  say  what  gnostics 
maintained  a  century  later. 

But  Stephen  is  not  through  yet  with  his 
speech.  Having-  said  all  that  in  praise  of 
Moses,  he  charges  on  fc<  our  fathers  "  the 
wickedness  that  they  would  not  obey 
Moses,  "  but  thrust  him  from  them,  and  in 
their  hearts  turned  back  to  Egypt."  Then 
he  continues,  how  they  said  to  Aaron,  to 
make  them  gods  to  replace  Moses,  and  how 
they  sacrificed  to  tiie  golden  calf.'  There- 
fore, be  continues,  God  turned  aside  from 
them,  "  and  gave  them  up  to  worship  the 
host  of  heaven,"  that  is  to  say,  because 
they  committed  one  sin,  God  forced  them 
to  commit  so  many  more.  This  injustice 
is  not  stated  anywhere  in  the  Bible.  Still 
Stepken  finds  a  passage  in  Amos  v,  25, 
which  he  did  not  know  exactly,  nor  did  he 
understand  the  sense  thereof.  The  prophet 
opposed  to  sacrifices  says  very  properly, 
"  Let  justice  roll  along  like  water,  and 
righteousness  as  a  mighty  stream.  Have 
ye  offered  unto  me  sacrifices  and  meat  offer- 
ings in  the  wilderness,  during  forty  years, 
O  house  of  Israel  ?"  The  prophet  intends 
to  say  that  God  wants  justice  and  right- 
eousness and  neither  sacrifices  nor  meat 
offerings.  But  how  miserably  does  Stephen 
turn  and  twist  this  passage  to  make  of  it 
the  bare  nonsense,  that  God  punishes  one 
sin  with  another.  Then  in  verse  46  he 
comes  with  Moloch,  the  Remphan  stars 
and  other  words  of  which  the  prophet  says 
nothing.  The  reasoning  of  Stephen  which 


302  ORIGIN  OF 

he  puts  into  the  shoes  of  the  prophet  is  very 
absurd ;  because  someoi  the  Hebrews  made 
a  golden  calf  in  the  wilderness,  therefore, 
nearly  one  thousand  years  later,  God  sent 
the  people  into  exile.  This  is  too  absurd 
for  a  prophet.  Still  more  absurd  it  is,  how- 
ever, to  think  that  a  man  being  tried  for 
his  life  should  defend  himself  in  the  most 
insulting  terms  against  the  ancestors  of  a 
people  before  whose  judges  he  stands,  es- 
pecially when  those  are  at  the  same  time 
also  his  own  sires.  Could  not  Stephen  find 
some  virtues  in  the  history  of  his  people? 
Can  a  Jew  speak  of  his  ancestors  without 
mentioning  some  of  their  excellencies  ? 
But  the  author  of  that  speech  was  no  Jew, 
he  knew  little  about  them  and  had  no  con- 
nection with  them.  Only  such  a  writer  can 
make  such  blunders  and  speak  so  meanly 
of  a  whole  people  and  of  a  thousand  years 
of  history. 

Stephen  then  comes  to  speak  about  the 
temple.  He  says  that  Moses  built  the 
tabernacle  as  God  had  shown  him,  and 
Solomon  built  the  temple  anyhow.  But 
God  dwells  not  in  temples,  in  support  of 
which  he  quotes  Isaiah  (Ixvi,  1.) 

Standing  accused  of  a  new  doctrine,  his 
belief  in  Jesus  and  his  statements  that 
Jesus  would  destroy  this  temple  and  abro- 
gate the  customs  of  Moses,  Stephen  speaks 
of  the  early  history  of  his  people  and  never 
touches  the  main  question.  At  last  he  says 
something  about  the  temple  which  Isaiah 
and  Solomon  had  said  long  before  him,  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  303 

every  schoolboy  in  Jerusalem  must  have 
known.  He  admits  the  accusation  by  his 
silence  on  the  main  subject,  without  mak- 
ing any  thing  like  a  defence  or  a  declara- 
tion of  principles.  This  is  not  the  speech 
of  a  man  and  a  teacher  upon  trial  for  his 
life  and  his  religious  doctrines ;  so  speaks 
a  second  rate  writer  to  fill  up  a  vacuum  in 
an  old  manuscript 

Worse,  however,  than  the  whole  speech 
is  the  valedictory.  Like  a  man  excited  to 
madness  Stephen  pours  forth  the  following 
string  of  invectives :  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and 
mi  circumcised  in  heart  and  ears  ;  ye  do  al- 
ways resist  the  Holy  Ghost- :  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye.  Which  of  the  prophets  have 
not  your  fathers  persecuted  ?  and  they  have 
slain  them  which  showed  before  of  the 
coming  of  the  Just  One,  of  whom  ye  have 
been  now  the  betrayers  and  the  murderers. 
Who  have'received  the  law  by  the  disposi- 
tion of  angels,  and  have  not  kept  it."  Is 
there  any  mad  man  in  this  country  who, 
before  a  high  court  of  justice,  will  thus 
plead  his  cause,  or  thus  disgrace  and  abuse 
his  own  ancestors?  Can  any  man  of  com- 
mon sense  believe  for  a  moment  that  any 
person  of  sound  mind  will  break  forth  in 
such  passionate  insults  in  place  of  a  plea  ? 
Besides  the  imprudence  in  the  matter,  the 
statements  made  in  this  valedictory  are 
positively  untrue.  The  Hebrews  have 
not  received  any  laws  by  angels,  and 
they  adhered  to  their  national  code  with 
scrupulous  conscientiousness  ever  since 


30*  Own  IN  OP 

they  4  had  returned  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  The  very  cause  of  their  misfor- 
tunes was  their  adherence  to  their  national 
laws,  and  the  repugnance  they  felt  to  for- 
eign laws,  dominion  and  rule.  The  Jews 
have  neither  betrayed  nor  murdered  Jesus  ; 
a  mob  may  have  done  so,  and  this  is  very 
doubtful,  and  a  mob  is  no  people.  All  the 
prophets  were  persecuted  by  the  kings  and 
not  by  the  people,  the  supposed  ancestors 
of  Jesus  were  guilty  of  this  crime,  and  one 
of  them  killed  Zechariah  in  the  temple. 
Throw  such  invectives  into  the  face  of  a 
people,  heap  upon  them  such  falsehoods 
and  insults,  and  what  must  they  do? 
Gnash  their  teeth — yes,  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts"  says:  "When  they  heard  these 
things,  they  wore  ent  lo  the  heart,  and  they 
gnashed  on  h\\:\  with  their  teeth."  He 
must  have  crid-nHy  considered  all  those 
dignitaries  and  attendants  a  very  mild  and 
gentlemanly  class  of  people,  if  they  only 
gnashed  with  their  teeth  ;  in  our  days  a 
man  making  such  a  plea  before  a  court 
would  either  be  sent  to  jail  for  contempt 
of  court,  or  to  thej  lunatic  asylum. 

This  gnashing  of  teeth  proved  fatal  to 
Stephen.  We  are  told  (verse  55)  that  he 
"  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (so  the 
madness,  the  blunders  and  the  falsehoods 
were  not  his,)  "  looked  up  steadfastly  into 
heaven,  and  saw  the  glory  of  God,  and 
Jesus  standing  (not  sitting)  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  (as  though  God  had  a  hand) 
and  said,  Behold !  I  see  the  heaven  open 


CHRISTIANITY.  305 

and  the  son  of  man  standing  at  the  right 
hand  of  God."  For  the  first  time  in  his 
long  speech  he  mentions  Jesus.  This  ex- 
cited the  passions  of  all  of  them  to  such  an 
awful  pitch  that  all  of  them  cried  out  with 
a  loud  voice,  stopped  their  ears,  ran  upon 
him  with  one  accord,  cast  him  out  of  the 
city  and  stoned  him.  They  could  stand  all 
the  insults ;  but  when  he  spoke  of  the  son 
of  man,  highpriest,  council,  judges,  bailiffs 
and  audience  suddenly  turned  into  a  fran- 
tic mob,  but  not  so  frantic  that  somebody 
killed  him  on  the  spot ;  they  dragged  the 
poor  man  out  of  the  city,  and  there  was 
nobody  in  that  city  to  arrest  a  frantic  mob, 
and  stoned  him  to  death.  Where  were  the 
people,  whom  the  chief  priests,  Seribes, 
Pharisees,  &c.,  always  dreaded?  Where 
was  the  Roman  authority  ?  Where  were 
the  5,000  Christians  of  Jerusalem  ?  Where 
were  all  the  angels,  miracles  and  the  Holy 
Ghost?  They  were  nowhere,  when  the 
highpriest  of  a  nation  with  his  council  run 
mad  with  a  mob  to  kill  an  innocent  man. 
It  requires  more  than  common  faith  to  be- 
lieve this. 

It  was  a  mob,  say  the  rational  expound- 
ers of  this  story,  which  overpowered  the 
highpriest  and  his  council,  seized  the  ac- 
cused man,  dragged  him  out  of  the  city  and 
killed  him.  The  highpriest  and  his  coun- 
cil could  not  or  would  not  resist  the  fana- 
tics. Mr.  Renan,  as  on  many  other  occa- 
sions, takes  this  matter  very  easy.  He 
thinks  it  was  quite  natural  that  it  should 


306  ORIGIN  OF 

be  so,  and  it  was  either  in  36,  37  or  38  A. 
C.  But  while  Mr,  Renan  has  not  the  least 
proof  either  in  favor  of  his  fluctuating 
dates,  and  we  have  proved  above  that  it 
was  after  50  A.  C.  which  upsets  his  reason- 
ing in  regard  to  the  Roman  authority;  the 
rationalists  can  not  tell  why  the  martyrdom 
of  Stephen  must  be  a  fact  at  all.  The 
speech  is  clearly  a  late  production  of  which 
Stephen  did  not  utter  a  word ;  why  not 
also  the  trial  and  the  whole  story  ?  The 
real  cause  of  dispute  between  Stephen  and 
his  opponents  is  unknown;  the  statements 
of  the  false  witnesses  is  an  absurdity  ;  the 
defence  is  an  invention ;  the  catastrophe 
an  improbability  next  to  an  impossibility  ; 
what  supports  the  main  fact  ?  The  state- 
ments of  Paul  recorded  in  "The  Acts" 
rest  on  no  better  authority  than  this  story 
itself,  and  in  the  epistles,  *'.  e.  by  Paul  him- 
self this  event  is  not  mentioned. 

Besides  all  this  it  is  evident  that  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts  "  had  in  view  to  tell 
a  story  leading  to  Paul's  conversion.  He 
states,  without  any  other  reason,  (verse  58) 
"  And  the  witnesses  laid  down  their  clothes 
at  a  young  man's  feet  whose  name  was 
Saul."  Then  again  he  states  (viii,  1,)" And 
Saul  was  consenting  unto  his  death." 
Besides  all  this  the  author  of  "  Tho  Acts  " 
who,  as  we  have  stated  before,  begins  with 
the  end,  and  has  a  large  congregation 
around  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  right 
after  the  death  of  Jesus,  while  a  few  years 
afterward  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind  in 


CHRISTIANITY.  307 

Jerusalem — must  dispose  of  that  body  as 
best  he  can.  Just  as  well  as  he  invented 
miracles,  speeches,  large  meetings,  public 
trials,  resting  on  some  facts  of  years  post 
festum;  he  invented  also  persecutions  to 
show  how  the  congregation  of  Jerusalem 
was  dispersed.  Stephen's  story  is  not  only 
an  introductory  to  the  conversion  of  Paul, 
but  also  to  a  general  persecution  against 
the  church  at  Jerusalem  ;  "  and  they  were 
all  scattered  abroad  throughout  the  regions 
of  Judea  and  of  Samaria,  except  the  apos- 
tles." The  question  here  is,  why  were  the 
apostles  tolerated  in  Jerusalem?  The 
apostles,  one  should  think,  must  have  been 
the  very  first  to  be  scattered  abroad.  But 
the  fact  was  that  the  apostles  were  in  Jeru- 
salem about  this  time,  and  there  was  no 
congregation  beyond  the  few  persons  who 
lived  in  one  house  with  the  apostles.  This 
fact  becomes  known  through  Paul,  and 
could  not  well  be  changed.  Therefore  we 
can  see  no  reason  why  the  Stephen  story 
should  not  be  an  invention  to  serve  the 
above  purposes. 

Josephus  who  notes  the  death  of  James, 
the  brother  of  Jesus,  must  have  noticed  also 
the  death  of  Stephen  and  the  apostle  James, 
if  either  was  historical ;  but  he  does  neither. 
The  statement  of  Josephus,  regarding  the 
execution  of  James,  that  the  law-abiding 
citizens  of  Jerusalem  were  so  alarmed  by 
that  act  of  violence  that  they  .successfully 
attempted  the  removal  of  the  highpriest  by 
Roman  authority,  proves  that  the  martyr 


308  ORIGIN  OF 

and  persecution  stories  are  not  true.  We 
have  seen  in  our  last  chapter  that  the  stories 
could  not  well  be  true.  The  difference  be- 
tween orthodox  Jews  and  apostolic  Chris- 
tians was  so  insignificant,  the  connections 
among  rabbis  and  apostles  were  so  amic- 
able, and  both  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were 
considered  so  harmless  a  class  of  people 
who  were  foolish  enough  to  believe  in 
necromancy,  that  the  persecution  stories 
rest  on  air  and  not  on  solid  fact,  notwith- 
standing all  theories  and  hypotheses  of  the 
rationalists  and  Mr.  Renan  to  the  contrary. 
The  story  before  us -was  written  by  a  Jew 
Christian.  The  cause  of  the  persecution 
and  the  violent  death  of  Stephen  is  charged 
upon  the  Libertines,  Cyrenians,  Alexan- 
drians, and  to  them  of  Cilicia  and  Asia 
who  excited  the  ire  of  the  community 
by  false  reports.  The  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees,  Scribes  and  chief  priests,  in  fact  all 
Jews  are  omitted.  It  is  a  plot  and  a  mob 
of  foreigners  in  Jerusalem.  The  highpriest 
and  his  council  play  no  part  in  the  matter. 
This  looks  of  itself  like  a  Jew  Christian. 
The  speech  of  course  was  written  much 
later  and  by  another  man  entirely.  Only 
a  Jew  Christian  could  think  of  the  crime 
of  changing  "  THE  CUSTOMS  which  Moses 
delivered  to  us."  A  Gentile  Christian  must 
have  stated  "  the  laws  "  and  not"  customs," 
with  which  he  had  nothing  to  do.  This 
word  "  custo-ms  "  refers  to  the  traditions 
which  we  have  mentioned  above,  to  which 
Jesus  and  the  apostles  clung.  Stephen,  ac- 


CHRISTIANITY.  309 

cording  to  our  writer,  was  not  guilty  of  any 
such  thing.  "Jesus  STANDING  on  the  right 
hand  of  God  "— "  I  see  the  SON  OP  MAN 
STANDING  on  the  right  hand  of  God."  are 
the  expressions  of  a  Jew  ;  a  Gentile  must 
have  said  "sitting"  and  "son  of  God." 
The  angels  sit  not  around  the  throne  of 
God,  they  "  stand  "  invariably  in  all  Jew- 
ish scriptures ;  while  the  heathen  deities 
"  sit,"  "  recline,"  or  take  any  comfortable 
position  in  the  Olympos.  Jesns  was  to  his 
Jewish  admirers  the  son  of  man,  and  to 
the  Gentiles  the  son  of  God.  The  last 
words  of  Stephen,  in  imitation  of  what 
Jesus  said,  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their 
charge,"  informs  us  of  the  object  which  the 
writer  had  in  view,  viz :  to  soften  the  hatred 
of  the  Gentile  Christians  against  the  Jews, 
an  object  which  Luke  had  not. 

Therefore  it  appears  that  there  was  a  tra- 
dition in  the  early  church  to  the  effect  that 
the  first  cause  of  Paul's  conversion  was  the 
death  of  some  righteous  man.  A  Jew 
Christian  shaped  this  story  and  called  the 
martyr  Stephanos,  whatever  his  name  may 
have  been  in  the  tradition,  because  Ste- 
phanos is  "  the  crown,"  "  the  diadem," 
either  because  he  received  the  crown  of 
martyrdom,  a  common  expression,  or  be- 
cause he  was  the  first  martyr  in  the  cause 
of  Christianity.  The  speech  was  written 
by  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  and  changed 
by  somebody  long  after  Luke  who  was  not 
so  entirely  ignorant  of  Scriptures. 

This  tradition  is  actually  found  in  the 


310  ORIGIN  OF 

rabbinical  literature,  only  in  another  form . 
One  Rabbi  Judah  HANNAHTIIUM  (and  this 
word  signifies  the  steward,  the  deacon,  one 
who  bears  or  keeps  the  seal)  was  con- 
demned to  death  by  a  decree  of  the  foreign 
government.  One  Ben  Kuphia*  resorted 
to  a  dangerous  stratagem  and  disguise  to 
save  him,  but  he  was  discovered,  and  both 
were  executed  in  a  most  terrible  manner. 
The  dogs  dragged  about  the  tongue  of 
Rabbi  Judah  Hannahthum.  When  Klisha 
ben  Abuiah  saw  this  horrible  sight,  he  was 
so  shocked  that  the  tongue  which  had  ut- 
tered so  many  beautiful  and  ingratiating 
words  of  truth  should  be  dragged  by  dogs 
that  he  despaired  of  the  justice  of  God, 
and  rejected  the  religion  of  IsraeLf 

If  from  a  Christian  point  of  view  the 
death  of  Stephen  was  the  original  cause  of 
Paul's  conversion  to  Christianity  ;  the  same 
story  from  a  Jewish  point  of  view  must 
have  made  of  him  an  infidel  and  a  skeptic. 
This  must  certainly  be  admitted.  The 
martyrdom  of  Stephen  and  of  Rabbi  Judah 
Hannahthum  are  narrated  from  two  points 
of  view,  from  a  Christian  and  a  Jewish  ; 
so  the  former  ascribes  it  to  foreign  persons 
in  Jerusalem,  and  the  latter  to  a  foreign 


*So  Seder  Haddorolh  calls  him.  Yehamoth  103  a 
he  is  called  Bar  Kiphnph  (edit.  Vienna);  in  Moed 
Kalan  25  bheis  called  Bar  Kiphuk  (edit.  Amster- 
dam.) Still  Seder  If uddoroth  points  to  both  as  identical 
with  his  lien  Kupiiia,  whose  story  he  tells  from  an 
ancient  Midrash,  Psalm  Ixix,  which  we  possess  not. 

t  Midrash    JSabba    Koheleth  ^3^  jTinX  31D   an(* 
do  do          Ruth  pjVSn  T^  as  alsoin  both 

Talmuds  Hagigah  and  elsewhere. 


CHRISTIANITY.  311 

government.  It  is  undoubtedly  the  same 
tale.  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  also  the 
Ben  Kuphia  of  the  Talmud  is  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  question 
can  be,  what  connection  has  Elisha  ben 
Abuiah,  the  ACHER  of  the  Talmud  with 
Paul?  but  we  maintain  their  identity. 
THE  ACHER"  OF  THE  TALMUD  is  THE  PAUL 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  We  will  prove 
this  novel  hypothesis  in  the  next  chapter. 
Thus  the  Stephen  story  foots  upon  ah  old 
tradition  which  was  differently  narrated  by 
Jews  and  Christians,  which  the  Jew  Chris- 
tian author  narrated  in  favor  of  the  Jews 
and  the  Gentile  Christian  embellished  with 
a  speech  to  a  contrary  effect.  It  is  a  mar- 
tyr story  borrowed  from  rabbinical  sources, 
which  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  used  to  their 
peculiar  purposes,  as  is  often  done  with 
legends  and  old  traditions. 


CHAPTER     IX. 

PAUL'-  A  CHER. 

The  identity  of  the  PAUL  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  ACHER  of  the  Talmud, 
if  successfully  established,  is  of  great  im- 
portance to  historiography,  both  as  regards 
the  origin  of  Christianity  and  the  tenden- 
cies of  the  Talmud.  A  large  number  of 
notices  concerning  Paul  may  be  gleaned 
from  the  Talmud  which  are  of  special  value 
to  church  history,  as  nothing  is  known  of 
him  beyond  his  stay  in  Rome ;  and  a  con- 


312  ORIGIN  OP 

siderable  number  of  passages  from  Paul's 
epistles  will  render  excellent  services  in 
expounding  obscure  passages  and  peculiar 
laws  of  the  Talmud.  The  importance  of 
this  investigation  is  greatly  enhanced  by 
the  fact  that  Paul,  notwithstanding  the 
fierce  opposition  of  his  cotemporaries  and 
the  earlier  fathers  of  the  church  to  his  pe- 
culiar doctrines,  was  the  actual  founder  of 
Christianity.  He  conceived  it,  he  named 
it,  he  nursed  it,  and  he  carried  it  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the 
creed  of  the  apostles  are  not  the  Chris- 
tianity of  history;  the  teachings  of  Paul 
with  the  Alexandrian  philosophical  com- 
mentary of  John's  Gospel  and  the  at- 
tempted conciliations  of  Luke  in  his  Gos- 
pel and  the  Acts,  are  the  basis  on  which 
the  Christianity  of  history  was  reared.  No 
student  of  history  will  deny  that  Chris- 
tianity was  a  mighty  factor  in  the  history 
of  mankind,  to  much  good  and  to  much 
evil.  Therefore  all  the  facts  relating  to 
Paul  which  we  can  discover  in  the  Talmud 
are  a  clear  gain  to  historical  knowledge. 
On  the  other  hand  again  the  identity  of 
Paul  and  Acher  defines  the  relations  of 
primitive  rabbinism,  from  and  after  Rabbi 
Akiba,  to  primitive  Christianity.  Paul's 
mystical  and  anti-law  tendencies,  so  often 
and  so  clearly  stated  in  his  epistles,  im- 
pressed rabbinism  with  a  directly  opposite 
nature,  viz:  rationality  and  Jaw,  law  for 
^very  human  thought,  feeling  or  action. 
One  drove  the  other  to  the  extreme  and  to 


CHEISTIANITY.  313 

onesidedness.  We  know  what  primitive 
Christians  and  fathers  of  the  Church 
thought  of  or  said  about  rabbinism  ;  but 
we  know  not  what  the  ancient  rabbis,  the 
founders  of  rabbinism  and  the  originators 
of  the  Talmud  thought  of  or  said  about 
Christianity;  either,  however,  is  import- 
ant to  the  historical  investigator.  The 
identity  of  Paul  and  Acher  once  es- 
tablished, and  this  vacuum  in  the  histori- 
cal knowledge  is  filled  with  a  large  number 
of  explanatory  facts. 

The  real  existence  of  the  Paul  of  the  New 
Testament  and  of  the  Acher  of  the  Talmud 
was  never  seriously  doubted,  nor  can  it  be 
legitimately  questioned.  Therefore  we 
have  nothing  to  say  on  this  topic  and  as- 
sume it  as  a  certainty.  Paul  was  a  man 
who  passed  under  a  fictitious  name,  another 
than  his  proper  one  which,  according  to 
Luke,  was  Saul.  (Paul  signifies  the  little 
one.)  Acher  also  was  a  man  who  passed 
under  a  fictitious  name,  for  Acher  signifies 
"  another,"  who,  according  to  the  rabbis, 
was  called  Elishah  ben  Abuah.  Both 
passed  under  fictitious  names,  and  the 
Hebrew  Acher  is  the  proper  and  exact  de- 
signation for  a  person  who  passes  under 
another  name  than  his  own.  The  first 
cause  of  Paul's  conversion  was  the  death 
of  an  innocent  man  (Stephen);  so  the  first 
cause  of  Acher's  apostacy  was  the  death  of 
an  innocent  man  (Judah  Hanahthum,)and 
conversion,  in  the  sense  of  the  Christian 
writers,  must  have  appeared  apostacy  to 
21 


314  OKIGIN  OF 

the  rabbinical  authors,  as  we  stated  above. 
Whoever  reads  the  genuine  epistles  of 
Paul  in  the  original  will  admit  that  he  was 
a  Greek  scholar ;  the  very  same  acquire- 
ment is  ascribed  to  the  Acher  of  the  Tal- 
mud. The  Talmud  (Hagigah  16)  speaking 
of  persons  whose  evil  propensities  were 
noticeable  already  in  their  early  days 
says  also  of  Acher,  "  Grecian  poetry  did 
not  fail  upon  his  lips.  It  is  said  of  Acher 
whenever  he  rose  in  the  academy  (when 
still  a  student)  many  books  of  the  unbe- 
lievers dropped  from  his  lap."*  Paul  before 
his  conversion  was  a  learned  Pharisee,  so 
was  Acher  previous  to  his  apostacy, 
so  that  even  after  that  the  dis- 
tinguished Rabbi  Mair  sought  his  wisdom 
and  his  company  and  defended  him  to  the 
very  last.  Paul  did  not  receive  the  degree 
of  Rabbi,  nor  did  Acher  (Aboth  iv,  20.)? 
Paul  states  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  Garnliel, 
so  undoubtedly  was  Acher  ;  for  he  is  always 
brought  in  close  connection  with  Rabbi 
Akiba,  and  he  called  Gamliel  his  teacher 
(Berachoth  37  a.)f  This  was  the  second 
Rabbi  Garnliel,  exactly  the  same  who  must 
have  been  the  teacher  of  Paul.  The  first 
Gamliel  succeeded  the  son  of  Hillel  as 


pDc  N?  ijv  ->n  * 

§  His  name  is  also  mentioned  Moed  Katan  20  a; 
but  the  Seder  Haddoroth,  Art.  Elishah  ben  Abuah, 
corrects  this  mistake.  Also  there  he  is  not  called 
Kabbi,  although  he  appears  at  the  head  of  a  school. 

D>JDD  nnN  TIE  -\y  »ypy  "T.X^DJ  p-i  n*1?  ION  f 
•pnom  p  IDIK  nnNtp  ^D^IN  uon  m1?  IDS  'u 

urnc*?  p 


CHRISTIANITY.  315 

prince  of  the  Sanhedrin  before  the  days  of 
Paul,  and  the  Gamliel  mentioned  in  "  The 
Acts"  was  simply  a  member  of  the  coun- 
cil, and  not  the  prince.  Still  it  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  Gamliel  was  introduced 
with  that  liberal  speech  on  his  lips,  because 
he  was  the  'teacher  of  Paul.  We  know  of 
Paul  that  he  was  known  in  Syria,  Asia  Mi- 
nor,Greece  and  Rome,hence  over  the  largest 
portion  of  the  Roman  empire;  precisely 
the  same  we  are  told  of  Acher  in  the 
Talmud,  (Hagigah  15,)^  whose  name 
was  "  known  all  over  the  earth."  Paul 
was  a  Christian  after  his  conversion  ;  so 
was  Acher  after  his  apostacy  according  to 
the  Talmud.  This  is  evident  from  the 
Midrash  Rabbah,  where  he  is  named  not 
merely  among  other  Christian  converts, 
but  agreeable  to  the  rabbinical  style  he  is 
mentioned  last  as  the  most  important  of 
them.f  It  also  appears  there  that  riding 

yv^x  K1?  mV  mcx  J 


t  Compare  Midrasti  Rabbah  Jiohcloth  to  Ec^plesiastes 
vii,  26,  with  ibid,  to  Eccl.  i,  S.  In  the  former  passage 
Rabbi  Aisi  of  Ceaarea  mentions  certain  rabbis  in 
juxta-ppsition  to  Minim,  viz: 

Rabbi  Eliezer—  and  James  of  Kaper-Geburia  ; 

Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Darna  and  James  of  Kaper- 
samia: 

Hananiah,  nephew  of  Rabbi  Joshua  and  those  of 
Capernaum; 

J  udah  ben  Nekisah  and  the  Minim  ; 

Rabbi  Nathan  and  his  pupil  ; 

Rabbis  Eliezer  and  Joshua—  and  ACHER. 

Turn  back  to  the  other  passage  marked  above,  and 
you  find  there  the  James  who  nearly  converted 
Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos  to  Christianity  ;  the 
James  who  wanted  to  heal  the  nephew  of  Rabbi 
Joshua  with  the  name  of  Jesus,  whose  name  was 
Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Dama;  Hananiah  who  was  con- 
verted at  Capernaum,  as  the  place  savs,  could  tea 
Christian  only  ;  the  pupil  of  Rabbi  Nathan  went  to 
the  very  same  place  to  be  converted.  The  same  is  the 
21* 


316  ORIGIN  OP 

publicly  upon  an  ass  or  especially  upon  a 
horse  on  Sabbath  day,  was  one  of  the  prac- 
tices among  primitive  Christians,  contrary 
to  the  opinions  of  the  rabbis  who  prohib- 
ited this  on  Sabbath.  So  we  read  there  of 
Hananiah,  the  nephew  of  Rabbi  Joshua, 
when  he  was  converted  at  Capernaum,  it  is 
told  of  him  as  a  characteristic  distinction, 
that  he  rode  upon  an  ass  on  Sabbath.  This 
fully  harmonizes  with  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man/'  hence 
not  for  the  animal.  The  very  same  thing 
is  particularly  noticed  several  times  of 
Acher,  who  rode  upon  an  ass  or  upon  a 
horse  on  Sabbath,  and  even  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  when  it  occurred  on  Sabbath.J 
Another  incident  mentioned  of  Acher 
points  into  the  same  direction.  The  woman 
who  asked  him  whether  he  was  Elishah 
ben  Abuah,  whose  name  was  known  all 
over  the  earth,  received  no  verbal  answer 
of  him  ;  "  he  pulled  a  raddish  out  of  its 
bed  on  Sabbath  and  gave  it  to  her,  then  she 
said  theu  art  Acher."  This  points  too  di- 
rectly to  the  plucking  of  ears  of  corn  on 
Sabbath  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  to  leave 
a  shadow  of  doubt  that  the  Talmud  meant 
to  state  that  Acher  was  a  Christian. 
Recapitulating  what  has  been  stated  on 

case  with  the  controversies  of  Rabbi  Judah  ben  Ne- 
kisah.  Thereiore  we  know  from  the  second  passage 
that  the  first  refers  to  Christians,  among  whom  Acher 
mentioned  last  must  have  been  considered  the  most 
prominent. 

I  Compare  Yerushalmi  Hagigah  ii,  1,  with  the  par- 
allel passages  in  the  JBabli,  also  Rabbah  to  Canticles  i, 
4;  ibid.  Ecclesiastes  v,  5;  ibid.  Ruth  iii,  3;  Mklrash 
Yalkut  Stumoid  974  and  Siphri  ibid. 


CHRISTIANITY.  317 

Paul  and  Acher,  \ve  have  before  us  the  fol- 
lowing similarities  from  two  different  kinds 
of  cotemporaneous  literature.  1.  Both  pass 
under  a  fictitious  name.  2.  Both  are  learned 
Pharisees,  Greek  scholars,  pupils  of  Gain- 
liel,  and  did  not  attain  the  degree  of  rabbi. 
3.  Both  were  converted  to  Christianity  and 
in  consequence  of  the  same  incident.  4_ 
Both  are  supposed  to  have  a  world-wide 
reputation  in  matters  of  religion.  These 
accidental  similarities  amount  almost  to 
an  evidence  of  identity.  There  is  no  person 
mentioned  in  the  rabbinical  literature  who 
is  any  way  as  nearly  Paul  as  Acher  is; 
and  there  is  no  person  mentioned  in  the 
history  of  those  days  who  is  any  way  ap- 
proaching Acher  as  nearly  as  Paul  does. 
Take  to  this  that  it  is,  indeed,  wonderful 
that  the  Talmud  should  make  no  mention 
of  Paul.  It  speaks  of  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples. It  mentions  every  Persian  or  Ro- 
man ruler  or  general  who  any  way  effected 
the  fate  of  the  Hebrews.  How  does  it  come, 
we  must  ask,  that  they  omit  the  name  of 
Paul,  the  most  successful  opponent  of  rab- 
binism,  who,  under  the  very  eyes  of  the 
oldest  and  most  influential  teachers  of  the 
Talmud,  propagated  a  new  creed  from 
Damascus  to  Athens  and  from  Jerusalem 
to  Rome?  This  argument  e  silentio  in  con- 
nection with  the  above  similarities  ought 
to  amount  to  an  evidence  of  identity,  es- 
pecially if  we  know  that  the  rabbis  could 
not  well  call  Paul  otherwise  than  Acher, 
"  the  other,"  or  the  one  who  passes  under 


318  ORIGIN  OF 

an  assumed  name.  Therefore,  after  having 
disposed  of  the  chronological  difficulties 
and  the  differences  of  names  and  places, 
we  might  close  this  chapter  and  take  for 
granted  the  identity  of  Paul  and  Acher. 
But  we  will  not  stop  at  accidents  when  es- 
sentials are  at  our  command;  especially 
as  by  the  exposition  of  the  essential  or  in- 
trinsic arguments  in  favor  of  the  identity 
of  Paul  and  Acher,  we  will  be  enabled  not 
only  to  establish  our  proposition  beyond 
doubt  or  cavil,  but  also  to  expound,  con- 
cerning those  personages,  passages  which, 
to  our  recollection,  have  not  been  suffi- 
ciently elucidated,  although  they  are  of 
paramount  importance  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  Paul  and  Ach&r. 

The  following  passage  of  the  Talmud* 
deserves  our  particular  attention  :  "  Four 
went  into  the  Paradise.  One  saw  and  died. 
One  saw  and  was  insane.  One  saw  and 
cut  the  scions.  One  went  in  and  came  out 
in  peace.  Ben  Azai  sn  w  and  was  insane. 
Regarding  him,  Scrip!  u res  say,  '  If  thou 
findest  honey,  eat  enough.'  Ben  Zoma  saw 
and  died.  Regarding  him,  Scriptures  say, 
4  Precious  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  those 
who  die  for  his  pious  ones.'  Acher  saw 
and  cut  the  scions.  Akiba  went  in  and 
came  out  in  peace." 

That  the  word  Pardess  used  in  this  pas- 
sage signifies  "Paradise"  admits  of  no 
doubt,  notwithstanding  all  the  suggestions 


*YerustialmiI£(t(ii0ah  ii,  1,  Babli,  ibid.  15  Midrash 
Babbah  Ruth  and  Yalket  Cohel 


cloth  as  above. 


CHRISTIANITY.  319 

of  some  commentaries  to  the  contrary. 
These  four  worthies  are  supposed  to  have 
visited  the  Paradise.  Another  rabbinical 
celebrity,  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Levi,  is  also 
represented  as  having  been  in  Paradise  by 
the  special  kindness  of  the  "  Angel  of 
Death,"  whom  he  deceived  in  a  most  cun- 
ning manner.  It  appears  that  it  was  not 
considered  an  impossibility  to  enter  alive 
into  Paradise,  although  few  could  do  it, 
and  the  fewest  came  out  in  peace. 

This  Paradise  was  no  terrestrial  abode  ;  it 
was  somewhere  in  heaven,  or  at  least  be- 
yond the  earth,  where  the  angels  and  the 
souls  of  departed  ones  live ;  where  one  could 
behold  the  mysteries  of  existence,  and  as- 
certain the  nature  of  a  higher  world  and  a 
higher  sphere.  We  have  quoted  above 
from  the  Talmud  that  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben 
Aroch  expounded  the  heavenly  scenes,  the 
throne  of  the  Almighty,  before  Rabbi  Jo- 
hanan  ben  Saccai,  his  teacher,  and  fire 
came  down  from  heaven  and  enveloped  all 
the  trees  which  broke  forth  in  psalmody, 
and  an  angel  exclaimed  from  the  midst  of 
the  fire :  Truly  this  is  the  description  of 
the  heavenly  scenes.  Again  we  have  seen 
the  same  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  .Levi,  in  imita- 
tion of  the  above,  expounded  the  mysteries 
on  high  so  that  the  angels  assembled  to 
listen  "  like  human  beings  who  assemble 
to  see  the  games  played  before  bride  and 
bridegroom." 

This  is  neither  parable,  nor  allegory;  it 
is  the  record  of  an  existing  superstition, 


320  ORIGIN  OF 

prevalent  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  that 
one  could  look  into  the  interior  of  heaven, 
behold  the  throne  of  God  and  the  surround- 
ing angels,  and  even  transport  himself 
alive  into  Paradise,  although  this  was  con- 
nected with  great  dangers  to  soul  and 
body.  By  what  secret  art,  by  what  mys- 
terious knowledge  or  practice  was  this 
achieved  ?  Was  human  nature  then  differ- 
ent from  what  it  is  now  ?  The  historical 
records  answer  with  an  emphatic  No ! 
Man  then  and  now  had  the  same  capacities, 
the  same  virtues  and  the  same  vices,  pre- 
cisely the  same  attributes,  and  committed 
the  same  follies  ;  they  were  the  same  crea- 
tures. Was  it  all  imagination,  the  illusions 
of  a  glowing  oriental  fantasy?  The  orient 
is  the  same  country  as  it  was  thousands  of 
years  ago,  no  change  in  the  climate,  degrees 
of  heat,  luxuriant  vegetation,  all  yet  the 
same;  imagination  also  has  not  changed. 
Look  upon  the  modern  Syrian  and  you 
have  an  ignorant  and  perverted  man  whose 
fantasy  is  unable  to  produce  any  thing  like 
the  lofty  angelology  of  the  Talmud.  The 
time  is  past  when  ignorant  or  lazy  men 
leaped  across  these  phenomena  .of  human 
mind,  of  spiritual  and  mental  exertions, 
with  the  convenient  pole  of  "  rabbinical 
trash."  It  is  a  piece  of  the  history  of  the 
mind,  a  part  of  the  whole ;  and  we  know 
the  whole  by  its  parts.  It  is  the  key  to  the 
origin  of  Christianity,  because  it  is  cotem- 
porary  history.  Stephen  sees  the  heavens 
open,  sees  the  throne  of  God  and  Jesus 


CHRISTIANITY.  321 

standing  before  Him.  Paul  has  visions,  all 
the  apostles  have  visions  of  angels  and  of 
Jesus.  Acher,  Ben  Azai.  Ben  Zoma,  Rabbi 
Akiba  and  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Levi  trans- 
port themselves  alive  into  Paradise ;  others 
see  the  angels,  hear  them  speak,  describe 
their  nature  and  their  services  around  the 
throne  of  God.  The  one  looks  like  the 
other,  both  tales  are  of  the  same  nature, 
originate  in  the  same  place  and  time,  serve 
to  the  same  purpose;  they  must  be  identi- 
cal, and  one  must  explain  the  other.  Let 
us  attempt  an  explanation. 

The  passage  from  the  Talmud  quoted 
above  was  expounded  by  Haya  ben  Sherira, 
Gaon  or  head  of  the  academy  of  Pum- 
Padita  from  989  to  1038  A.  C.;  hence  by  one 
to  whom  the  rabbinical  traditions  were  no 
dead  matter.  He  had  undoubtedly  the 
best  opportunities  to  know  and  to  under- 
stand them.  Besides  all  this  he  was  so 
extensive  and  successful  an  author  and  so 
enlightened  a  mind  that  his  opinions  nat- 
urally have  great  weight,  and  his  veracity 
in  the  statement  of  facts  was  never  ques- 
tioned. He  having  been  asked  to  expound 
the  above  passage  gave  the  following  epis- 
tolary answer : 

"  Know  that  it  never  was  our  method  to 
search  after  a  thing  and  expound  it  con- 
trary to  the  intentions  of  him  who  said  it, 
as  others  sometimes  do.  So  also  in  this 
case  we  will  expound  for  you -the  idea  of 
this  teacher,  his  veritable  intention,  what 
he  in  truth  meant  to  say,  without  deciding 


322  ORIGIN  OF 

now  whether  there  is  a  law  involved 
therein. 

"  There  are  undoubtedly  many  passages 
(in  the  Talmud)  which  contain  no  law,  and 
we  expound  them  agreeably  to  the  inten- 
tions of  him  who  made  them.  It  is  main- 
tained that  one  who  has  attained  certain 
moral  excellencies  may  be  permitted  to 
look  upon  the  divine  throne  and  see  the 
palaces  of  the  angels  on  high  by  the  fol- 
lowing means :  He  fasts  many  days,  then 
he  sits  with  his  head  bent  down  between 
his  knees,  an&  murmurs  to  the  earth  nu- 
merous hymns  and  prayers  of  adoration 
known  to  them,  and  thus  he  looks  into  the 
inside  of  rooms,  as  if  he  would  see  into 
seven  adjoining  palaces,  and  it  would  ap- 
pear to  him  as  if  he  was  going  from  one 
palace  into  the  other  and  see  what  is  in 
each.  There  are  two  books  which  ancient 
teachers  wrpte  on  this  subject,  the  one  is 
called  Hechaloth  Rabbathi,  "  the  large  pal- 
aces," and  the  other  is  called  Hechaloth 
Zutrathi,  "  the  small  palaces."  This  is  pub- 
licly and  well  known,  and  upon  such 
visions  is  based  the  statement  of  the  four 
who  entered  the  Paradise.  They  expressed 
the  celestial  palaces  by  the  word  Paradise, 
to  which  they  rose,  and  supposed  to  have 
looked  on  the  divine  throne,  and  went 
through  the  palaces  on  high." 

Here  we  may  stop,  as  we  know  enough 
for  our  purpose.  "VVe  know  that  those  rab- 
binical luminaries  practiced  precisely  the 
same  self-deception  as  thousands  in  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  323 

Orient  have  dane  before  and  after  them. 
The  fasting  itself,  if  one  takes  no  food  for 
several  days,  brings  on  a  delirious  state  of 
the  brain.  The  peculiar  position  of  the 
body,  the  head  bent  down  between  the 
knees,  changes  the  natural  circulation  of 
the  blood,  and  excites  the  wildest  fantasies 
in  the  brain.  To  this  comes  the  murmur- 
ing of  certain  hymns  and  prayers  of  adora- 
tion, the  prejudices  with  which  one  comes 
to  the  unnatural  exercise,  the  solitude  and 
most  likely  also  the  dim  twilight  in  which 
he  remains  for  several  successive  hours,  to 
ignite  the  imagination.  This  is  enough, 
more  than  enough,  to  excite  one  to  mad- 
ness as  it  did  Ben  Azai  in  our  case,  or  kill 
a  person  of  weaker  nerves,  as  it  did  Ben 
Zoma  in  our  story.  These,  however,  are 
the  extreme  cases ;  the  two  others,  Rabbi 
Akiba  and  Acher,  experienced  other  and 
contrary  effects.  Akiba  came  out  in  peace 
of  this  terrible  self-deception,  and  became 
a  sober  and  strong  reasoner  in  the  Law, 
although  he  believed  in  it  in  former  days, 
and  said,  "  If  the  evil  spirits  come  to  him 
who  fasts,  and  spends  the  night  on  a  burial 
ground,  so  much  easier  will  the  clean 
spirits  (the  angels)  come  to  him  who  fusts 
on  their  account,"  which  undoubtedly  re- 
fers to  this  practice  of  self-deception.  But 
Acher,  the  Talmud  maintains,  who  prac- 
ticed the  same  self-deception  and  also  be- 
lieved to  have  been  transported  into  Para- 
dise and  to  have  looked  into  the  pal- 
aces on  high — cut  the  scions,  erred,  went 


324  ORIGIN  OF 

astray,  became  an  apostate  and  heretic, 
as  the  rabbinical  expression  in  the  Babli, 
"  he  went  forth  to  the  increase  of  evil  "  or 
to  "  evil  increase,"  Turbuth  raauth  must  be 
understood.  This  self-deception,  this  is  the 
moral  of  the  passage,  is  the  cause  of  un- 
timely death,  of  madness,  of  apostacy  and 
heresy,  while  in  one  case  out  of  four  it  is 
harmless. 

But  be  this  as  it  may.  This  tale  affords 
us  the  key  to  the  mystical  knowledge  of 
those  days.  It  informs  us  how  the  people 
in  those  days  came  to  see  the  angels  and 
to  converse  with  them,  to  describe  their 
numbers,  divisions,  functions,  names  and 
positions  about  the  throne  of  the  Most 
High.  Alter  one  had  repeated  that  practice 
several  times  he  must  have  become  vision- 
ary and  deluded  enough  for  a  life  time,  to 
see  and  to  hear  the  angels  anywhere  al- 
most. To  all  this  must  be  added  that  tens 
of  thousands,  besides  the  authors  of  the 
New  Testament  and  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians believed  in  those  visions  The  author 
of  the  above  letter,  the  Gaon  Haya  ben 
Sherira,  had  not  the  moral  courage  to  reject 
the  superstition  connected  with  the  prac- 
tice which  he  so  minutely  describes.  He 
closes  his  epistle  with  the  statement  that 
in  former  days  these  mutters  and  the  other 
miracles  recorded  in  the  Talmud  were 
firmly  believed.  But  when  Rabbi  Samuel 
was  Gaon,  a  man  who  read  much  foreign 
literature  and  encouraged  the  reading 
thereof,  those  miracles  were  generally  dis- 


CHRISTIANITY.  325 

credited.  Finally  he  leaves  his  friend  to 
choose  between  belief  and  disbelief  in  this 
matter ;  but  admonishes  him  to  prefer  "  the 
halls  of  the  law."  It  is  wonderful,  indeed, 
that  the  head  of  the  academy,  the  highest 
authority  among  the  Hebrews  of  those 
days,  in  the  tenth  century  or  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  eleventh,  had  the  moral  courage, 
to  express  doubt  in  those  visions  and  that 
practice.  No  pope  and  no  caliph  of  those 
days  would  have  ventured  a  similar  opin- 
ion on  their  religious  literature  respectively. 
Toward  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
Rabbi  Berechiah,  a  celebrated  doctor 
among  the  Babylonian  rabbis,  expressed 
his  implicit  belief  in  this  mystic  art  and 
the  angelology  derived  from  it.  In  anoth- 
er version  of  this  story*  Rabbi  Akiba  is 
reported  to  have  made  the  sensible  state- 
ment that  he  did  not  escape  unhurt  from 
the  Paradise,  or  rather  from  that  derang- 
ing practice,because  he  was  any  way  greater 
or  better  than  others  who  did  the  same,  but 
because  he  had  arrived  at  the  conviction 
that  the  sages  were  right  in  saying,  "  Thy 
deeds  will  bring  thee  near  to  or  thy  deeds 
will  bring  thee  far  from  (God,)  and  con- 
cerning this,  Scriptures  state,  '  The  king 
brings  me  into  his  rooms.'  "  This  is  plain 
enough.  After  he  had  comprehended  the 
wickedness  and  the  folly  .of  that  self-de- 
ceptive practice,  he  taught  others  not  to  do 
it,  and  to  choose  the  path  of  righteousness 

*Kabbah  toCanticles  i,  4. 


326  ORIGIN  OF 

as  the  only  means  to  approach  the  Eternal 
to  enter  the  "  rooms  of  the  king."  Rabbi 
Jannai,  in  the  passage  before  us,  confirms 
this  view  by  another  pi*oof.  But  then 
comes  in  conclusion,  Rabbi  Berachiah,  with 
a  plain  protest  against  the  two  former,  and 
confirms  that  there  are  secret  means  to  look 
into  the  mysteries  of  heaven,  and  in  proof 
thereof  he  states,  "  How  else  could  Elihu, 
the  son  of  Berachael,  the  Buzite,  (in  the 
book  of  Job,)  come  and  describe  to  Israel 
the  halls  of  the  Behemoth  and  the  Levia- 
than ?  or  how  could  Ezekiel  come  and  un- 
cover to  them  the  halls  of  the  divine 
throne  ?  This  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
words,  '  The  king  brings  me  into  his 
rooms/"  The  Talmud  and  the  Midrash 
contain  plenty  of  evidence  that  the  demon- 
ology,  the  angelology  and  the  mystic  arts 
connected  with  either,  are  no  allegories,  no 
parables,  they  are  intended  to  represent 
solid  facts.  Although  tens  of  thousands 
never  believed  in  them,  nevertheless  there 
were  tens  of  thousands  in  Israel,  and  there 
are  plenty  to-day,  exactly  as  among  the 
Christian  writers  and  disciples,  then  and 
now  who  believed  the  entire  compendium 
of  mysteries.  It  is  perfectly  useless  lor 
either  Talmudist  or  Christian  interpreter 
of  the  New  Testament,  to  view  the  mys- 
tical portions  of  the  New  Testament  or  the 
Talmud  in  any  other  light  but  that  of  al- 
leged facts,  and  to  believe  or  reject  them 
as  such. 
The  belief  in  secret  arts  and  mysterious 


CHRISTIANITY.  327 

sciences  is  natural  to  the  ignorant  and  to 
the  lazy.  Those  whose  knowledge  is  limited 
to  a  small  compass,  if  perchance  they  be- 
come aware  of  the  insufficiency  thereof,  in 
nine  cases  out  of  ten,^vill  resort  to  super- 
stitions in  preference  to  a  legitimate  re- 
search after  cause  and  effect.  The  same 
precisely  is  the  case  with  those  who  are  too 
lazy  to  think  and  reflect.  In  dim  mystery, 
they  guess  replies  on  queries  to  which  only 
patient  research  and  diligent  study  afford 
a  proper  and  satisfactory  solution.  There- 
fore, as  a  usual  thing,  superstition  in  in- 
dividuals or  communities  stands  in  a  fair 
ratio  to  their  ignorance,  or  to  their  laziness 
in  mental  exertions  caused  by  super- 
abundance, or  by  relaxing  influences  nat- 
ural or  artificial.  But  there  are  still  other 
causes  which  favor  the  spread  of  supersti- 
tion. Helplessness  and  despair  are  preg- 
nant with  it.  Over-exertions  of  the  mind 
in  one  direction  cause  a  relapse  into  the  op- 
posite extreme.  The  Hebrews  of  those 
days  suffered  beth.  The  Roman  power  was 
pressing  down  upon  them  with  crushing 
weight.  National  despair  and  individual 
helplessness  were  the  natural  consequences. 
They  saw  their  country  and  with  her  their 
laws,  their  institutions  and  their  religion, 
as  they  understood  it,  sink  lower  and  lower 
and  rapidly  approach  the  brink  of  destruc- 
tion. Many  of  the  learned  doctors  had  ex- 
hausted their  minds  in  one  direction,  the 
natural  tendency  of  the  Hebrew  people,  in 
rationality  and  law.  It  is  quite  natural 


328  ORIGIN  OF 

that  they  relapsed  into  the  opposite  ex- 
treme, mystery  and  superstition,  to  which 
neighboring  nations  supplied  them  with 
abundant  material.  This  is  the  key  to  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  morbid  pulsa- 
tions  and  the  awkward  phenomena  in  the 
age  which  gave  birth  to  Christianity,  the 
Messianic  hopes  and  speculations,  the  an- 
gelology  and  the  demonology,  the  secret 
arts  and  the  mysterious  sciences,  together 
with  all  the  other  superstitions  of  marvel- 
ous cures,  private  or  public  miracles,  as 
recorded  either  in  the  Talmud  or  the  New 
Testament ;  the  one  is  as  valuable  or  as 
worthless  as  the  oth.er.  This  explains  fully 
the  sense  of  the  passage,  "  Four  went  into 
Paradise,"  &c.,  and  all  similar  passages  in 
the  Talmud  and  the  New  Testament. 

We  have  seen  that  ACHER  was  one  of  the 
four  who  went  "  into  the  Paradise."  He 
was  the  only  one  of  them  who,  in  conse- 
quence thereof,  deserted  the  religion  of  Is- 
rael and  turned  an  apostate.  This,  as  we 
have  explained  above,  would  signify,  in 
the  sense  of  a  Christian  writer,  that  Acher, 
in  consequence  of  his  having  been  "  in  the 
Paradise,"  was  converted  to  Christianity. 
If  Acher  and  Paul  were  identical,  then  we 
are  informed  of  the  original  cause  of  his 
conversion  ;  the  death  of  Stephen  or  Judah 
Hanahthum  was  the  external  impulse 
which  roused  the  latent  conviction  to  prac- 
tical activity.  If  Paul  himself  did  say  that 
he  was  in  "  Paradise,"  then  the  identity  of 
Paul  and  Acher  is  established,  not  only  by 


CHRISTIANITY.  329 

an  additional  accident  and  the  testimony 
of  Paul  himself,  but  also  by  the  essential 
and  intrinsic  argument  of  the  sameness  of 
mental  tendency.  Let  us  hear  then  what 
Paul  says  of  himst-li  (II  Corinthians  xii,  1) : 
"  It  is  not  expedient  for  me  to  glory.  I  will 
come  to  visions  and  revelations  of  the 
Lord.  I  know  a  man  in  Christ  who  about 
fourteen  years  ago,  (whether  in  the  body,  I 
can  not  tell ;  or  whether  out  of  the  body,  I 
can  not  tell,  God  knoweth)  was  caught  up 
to  the  third  heaven.  And  I  know  that  this 
man  (whether  in  the  body,  or  out  of  the 
body,  I  can  not  tell,  God  knoweth) :  Nay, 

I  KNOW  THAT  THIS  MAN  WAS  CAUGHT  UP 
INTO  PARADISE,  AND  HH*.RD  UNSPEAKABLE 
WORDS  WHICH  IT  IS  NOT  POSSIBLE  FOR  A  MAN 

TO  UTTER.f  Of  such  a  one  will  I  glory,  yet 
of  myself  will  I  not  glory." 

Nobody  has  yet  supposed  that  Paul  in 
this  instance  did  not  speak  of  himself. 
Thus  he  corroborates  the  rabbinical  tale  of 
the  four  who  were  in  Paradise,  confirms 
his  identity  with  the  Acher  of  the  Talmud 
and  teaches  us  what  it  means  4<  to  be  in 
Christ ;"  it  is  the  same  art  as  "  to  be  in 
Paradise,"  as  the  Gaon  Haya  ben  Sherira 
describes  it. 

We  could  conveniently  stop  here,  and  all 
critics  would  be  obliged  to  admit  the  iden- 
tity of  Paul  and  Acher.  But  we  have  even 
more  conclusive  evidence  and  will  produce 
it,  especially  as  it  elucidates  the  secret 
history  of  Paul. 

t  Luke  alsoxxiii,43,  knows  ef  the  rabbinical  Para- 
dise in  place  of  heaven. 


330  ORIGIN  OF 

Whether  the  LOGOS  of  John's  Gospel  is 
taken  from  Philo,  as  Daehne  and  other 
writers  on  the  Alexandrian  eclectics  ad- 
vance, or  whether  the  Philonic  works  were 
enlarged  by  Christian  hands,  and  the  Logos 
of  Philo  is  of  Christian  origin,  as  Kirsch- 
baum  and  others  maintain,  is  of  little  con- 
sequence to  our  purpose.  It  suffices  us  to 
know  that  Paul  never  mentions  the  Logos, 
although  he  frequently  speaks  of  "  the  Son 
of  God,"  as  he  called  Jesus.  The  applica- 
tion of  the  Logos  to  the  Son  of  God  belongs 
to  John,  the  last  of  the  Gospel  writers,  so 
much  is  certain ;  and  this  marks  the  third 
phase  in  the  development  of  Christian 
theology. 

Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  is  entirely  differ- 
ent from  John's  "  Logos,"  as  much  so  as  it 
is  from  Peter's  "Messiah."  These  three 
words,  Messiah,  Son  of  God,  Logos,  mark 
three  successive  epochs  in  the  history  of 
Christianity,  preceding  the  adoption  of  the 
Trinitarian  doctrine,  of  which  neither 
Peter,  nor  Paul,  nor  even  John  had  any 
knowledge.  As  Paul,  agreeable  to  his  vo- 
cation as  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  heathen- 
ised  Peter's  Messiah  into  a  "  Son  of  God  " 
without  erasing  from  him  all  traits  of  the 
Jewish  Messiah ;  so  John  philosophized 
Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  into  the  Logos  of  the 
Alexandrian  eclectics,  without  erasing  all 
traits  of  Paul's  "  Son  of  God,"  but  destroy- 
ing every  feature  of  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
If  Mr.  Renan  had  investigated  these 
marked  epochs  of  theological  development, 


CHRISTIANITY.  331 

he  would  not  have  fallen  into  the  mistake 
of  preferring  John's  Gospel  as  a  historical 
source  to  the  Synoptics,  and  even  to  Mat- 
thew and  Mark. 

John's  "Logos"  differs  radically  from 
Paul's  "  Son  of  God."  To  use  a  Christian 
phrase,  John's  "  Logos  "  is  a  person  in  God 
himself,  equal  to  the  Father  and  co-eternal 
with  Him.  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
word,"  hence  the  beginning  begins  with 
the  Logos;  "And  the  word  was  with  God," 
hence  it  was  not  apart  or  outside  of  him  ; 
"And  God  was  the  word,"  hence  the  Logo* 
is  equal  to  and  co-eternal  with  the  Father.* 
This  is  now  the  doctrine  of  orthodox  Trini- 
tarians, although  few  of  them  know  that  it 
was  promulgated  by  John  only.  The  Logos 
of  the  Alexandrian  eclectics  is  "  THE  ME- 
DIATOR BETWEEN  GOD  AND  THE  MATERIAL 
WORLD,  THE  SON  OF  GOD,  THE  FIRST-BORN, 
AND  THE  WISDOM  OF  GOD  FRUCTIFIED  STILL 

ALWAYS  VIRGIN."!  It  is  by  far  more  likely 
that  John  copied  from  Philo  than  to  sup- 
pose that  Philo's  works  were  interpolated 
after  John.  Be  this  as  it  may,  both  are 
identical  in  the  abstract,  and  have  their 
origin  in  one  source,  Grecian  mythology. 
The  Greeks  had  two  Zeus;  one  was  the 
eternal  and  incornprehensible,and  the  other 
was  the  son  of  Chronos,  a  finite  child,  hold- 
ing a  position  between  the  finite  and  in- 
finite, between  time  and  eternity,  who  is 

*  Compare  John  i,  1  to  5,  and  14 ;  iii,  13 ;  v,  20 ;  vi,  38, 
36,  xvii,  5,  24. 
tSee  Philo  De  Cherubim, 
22* 


332  ORIGIN  OP 

destined  to  overcome  time  and  the  finite, 
his  own  father  Chronos.  The  Theogony 
(v,  465)  has  it  thus  :  "  Chronos  knows  that 
he  will  be  conquered  by  his  own  son  Zeus, 
agreeable  to  the  will  of  the  great  Zeus."% 
The  first  and  eternal  Zeus  became  in  Chris- 
tian theology  the  Father,  and  the  second 
Zeus  became  the  Logos  of  the  Alexandrian 
eclectics  and  of  John,  one  who  is  Zeus  or 
the  highest  deity  himself,  but  in  relation 
to  the  world,  he  is  the  son  of  time  which 
he  conquers.  The  abstract  speculation  is 
always  the  same  ;  it  is  God  accommodated 
to  the  imperfect  conceptions  of  man  in  ages 
of  gross  pantheism.  The  absolute  and  in- 
finite was  beyond  the  horizon  of  their 
reason.  Nature,  with  all  her  phenomena, 
appeared  to  them  the  direct  and  immediate 
effect  of  the  Deity.  Unable  to  think  of 
finite  effects  from  an  infinite  cause,  they  felt 
the  necessity  of  a  connecting  link  between 
the  finite  and  infinite,  something  which  is 
both  finite  and  infinite.  Therefore,  with- 
out observing  the  contradiction  in  the 
terms  themselves,  the  Greeks  had  their 
second  Zeus, the  son  of  Chronos,the  Alexan- 
drian eclectics  and  John  had  their"  Logos," 
both  of  which,  in  pure  English,  signify  the 
laws  of  nature. 

The  purely  Jewish  doctrine  in  this  point 
was  expressed  by  Paul  in  his  address  to 
the  Athenians  (Acts  xvii,  22  to  29.) 


J  A  remarkable  passage  for  Christian  dogmatics  is 
in  Hesiod's  poem,  "  The  Shield  of  Hercules," 
verse  39. 


CHRISTIANITY.  333 

"  Then  Paul  stood  in  the  midst  of  Mars- 
hill,  and  said,  Ye  men  of  Athens,  I  per- 
ceive that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  supersti- 
tious. For  as  I  passed  by,  and  beheld  your 
devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with  this  in- 
scription, TO  THE  UNKNOWN  GOD. 
Whom  therefore  ye  ignorantly  worship, 
him  declare  I  unto  you.  God  that  made  the 
world,  and  all  things  therein,  seeing  that 
he  is  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  dwelleth 
not  in  temples  made  with  hands  ;  neither 
is  worshiped  with  men's  hands,  as  though 
he  needed  any  thing,  seeing  he  giveth  to  all 
life,  and  breath,  and  all  things  ;  and  hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for 
to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed, 
and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  ;  that 
they  should  seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they 
might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us  ;  for  in 
him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  cur 
being;  as  certain  also  of  your  own 
poeis  have  said,  For  we  are  also  his  off- 
spring. Forasmuch  then  as  we  are  the 
offspring  of  God,  we  ought  not  to  think 
that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto  gold,  or  silver, 
or  stone,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device." 

The  above  passage  shows  that  Paul  was 
no  Trinitarian,  and  that  his  "  Son  of  God  " 
was  not  God  himself  or  a  person  of  the 
Deity.  He  draws  a  distinct  line  of  demar«- 
cation  between  God  and  Jesus.  He  SERVES 
God  with  his  spirit,  "  in  the  Gospel  of  his 
Son  "  (Romans  i,  9,)  and  does  not  worship 
Jesus.  He  speaks  of  a  day,  "  when  God 
shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men"  (ibid,  ii, 
16,)  hence  God  will  judge,  and  not  Jesus 
who  will  only  be  instrumental  thereto. 
The  Jesus  of  Paul  did  not  raise  himself 
from  the  dead,  which  he  must  have  done  if 


334  ORIGIN   OF 

he  was  God  himself;  it  is  God  whom  Paul 
calls  "  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead."  (Ibid,  viii,  11.)  The 
"  Son  "  is  subject  to  the  "  Father,"  to  whom 
he  will  deliver  the  kingdom,  after  certain 
objects  are  attained.  "  And  when  all  things 
shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  shall  the  Son 
also  himself  be  subjected  unto  him  that  put 
all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all 
in  all?"  (I  Corinthians  xv,  28.)  The  resur- 
rected Jesus  "  liveth  unto  God,"  (Romans 
vi,  10)  and  not  in  God.  He  is  no  God  him- 
self, but  the  "ONE  MAN  "  (Ibid,  v,  15  to  17) 
who  was  to  bring  the  gifts  of  grace. 

Two  passages  in  I  Corinthians  (iii,  23,  and 
xi,  3)  explain  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  Paul's  "  Son  of  God "  is  no  god,  no 
part  of  god,  no  person  in  god  and  no  logos. 
Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians,  "And  ye  are 
Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's."  This  signi- 
fies that  as  the  Corinthians  belong  to  Christ, 
so  he  belongs  to  God  ;  again  as  the  Corin- 
thians are  not  Christ  himself,  so  he  is  not 
God  himself.  He  states  this  still  clearer  in 
saying :  "  But  I  would  have  you  know  that 
the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ ;  and  the 
head  of  the  woman  is  the  man  ;  and  the 
head  of  Christ  is  God."  Inasmuch  as  no- 
body can  be  his  own  head,  Jesus,  in  the 
estimation  of  Paul,  can  not  be  God  himself. 
In  the  same  spirit  he  speaks  in  saying 
(Corinthians  xv,  27):  "For  He  (God)  hath 
put  all  things  under  his  (Jesus)  feet.  But 
when  he  saith  all  things  are  put  under  him, 


CHRISTIANITY.  335 

it  is  manifest  that  He  (God)  is  excepted, 
which  did  put  all  things  under  him." 

The  expression  "  baptized  unto  Christ  " 
is  fully  explained  in  I  Corinthians  (x,  2,) 
by  the  expression  "  baptized  unto  Moses:" 
He  thinks  the  ancient  Jews  were  baptized 
unto  Moses  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  by 
the  sea.  So  the  Christians  were  baptized 
unto  Jesus  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  signifies  in  both  instances  to  be  devoted 
and  dedicated  to  the  doctrines  and  precepts 
of  a  man.  It  is  evident  from  I  Corinthians 
(xv,  30)  that  Paul  represented  Jesus  as  the 
first  man  who  resurrected  from  death, "  the 
first  fruits  of  them  that  slept,"  whom  all 
should  follow  on  the  day  of  resurrection. 
His  resurrection  is  no  exception  from  the 
general  law  of  God  ;  it  only  came  a  little 
sooner,  in  order  to  warn  others  of  the 
approach  of  the  day  of  judgment. 
Common  sense  will  never  succeed  by 
honest  research  in  the  reconciliation  of 
John's  "  Logos  "  with  Paul's  "  Son  of  God," 
as  little  indeed  as  either  can  be  identified 
with  Peter's  "Messiah"  or  "Christ." 
Nothing  is  too  difficult  to  faith  and  fancy, 
or  impossible  to  theological  whits;  but 
common  sense  and  honest  research  will 
never  succeed  in  the  reconciliation  of  these 
conflicting  and  contradictory  representa- 
tions ot  the  nature  of  Jesus. 

Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  is  precisely  identi- 
cal with  the  "  Metathron  "  of  the  rabbinical 
mystics.  The  only  question  in  this  regard 
can  be,  whether  Paul  adopted  the  Metathron 


336  ORIGIN  OF 

of  the  rabbinical  mystics  or  vice  versa.  All 
the  angels  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  and 
the  Midrash  bear  either  Hebrew  or  Chal- 
daic  names,  except  two,  viz:  Metathron 
and  Synadelphon.  The  former  is  undoubt- 
edly derived  from  the  Greek  meta  and 
thronos,  signifying  one  who  is  ''with"  or 
"  by  "  or  "  near  "  the  throne,  the  angel 
next  to  the  throne  of  God ;  and  the  latter 
is  derived  from  the  Greek  syn  and  adelphos, 
like  sympathy,  symmetry  and  the  like,  and 
signifies  a  "  with-brother,"  "co-brother" 
or  "  fellow-brother,"  an  angel  who  stands 
in  intimate  or  brotherly  relations  to  the 
Deity.  Synadelphon  (po^ijD)  is  also  called 
Akathriel,  "  the  crown  of  the  Lord,"  be- 
cause he  is  supposed  to  stand  behind  the 
throne  of  God,  and  make  crowns  or 
wreaths  of  the  prayers  and  hymns  of 
man  for  the  head  of  God. 

Metathron  (jnaac)  is  called  the  king 
of  the  angels,  the  prince  of  the  countenance 
(o^un  ne>)  and  many  other  distinguishing 
names.  He  stands  before  God  next  to  His 
throne  and  is  the  archangel  who,  like  Syn- 
adelphon,receives  the  prayers  to  bring  them 
before  God.  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Levi,  in 
the  Talmud  (Berachoth  51  a)  calls  this  an- 
gel, viz  :  the  "  prince  of  the  countenance," 
SUBIEL,  who  divulged  to  him  some  import- 
ant secrets.  But  according  to  a  doctrine 
of  the  rabbis,  one  angel  performs  no  two 
duties,  nor  do  two  angels  perform  one  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  337 

the  same  function.*  Therefore  these  four 
names,  Metathron,  Synadelphon,  Akathriel 
and  Suriel  appear  to  point  to  one  angel.f 

Who  was  that  angel  ?  where  and  when 
did  he  come  into  existence?  Here  the 
opinions  are  divided.  Some  of  the  rabbis 
think  the  angels  were  called  into  existence 
when  God  created  the  world.  Rabbi  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrkanos  (in  Pirke  R.  E.)  and  Rabbi 
Johannan  ben  Saccai  state,  the  angels  were 
created  the  second  day  of  creation  ;  but 
Rabbi  Hanina  thinks,  they  were  created  on 
the  fifth  day  (Bereshith  Rabba  iii,)  and 
in  the  Yalkut  Hadash  it  is  stated  the  angels 
were  created  prior  to  this  world. 

Some  of  the  rabbis,  however,  did  not  be- 
lieve that  any  angels  were  created,  because 
Moses  makes  no  mention  of  them.  So  it 
is  stated  in  the  Talmud  (Hagigah  14  a) : 
"  Ministering  angels  are  created  every  day 
from  the  stream  of  Dinur.  They  sing  the 
praise  of  God  and  perish."  A  later  rabbi, 
Jonathan,  said,  "  From  every  word,  issuing 
from  the  mouth  of  God,  an  angel  is  created." 
(Ibid.)  The  former  statement  gave  rise  to 
the  following  anecdote :  "  Hadrian  asked 


rm?  nnx  -JS^D  px 


f  This  will  explain  a  peculiar  passage  in  the  Jalkut 
Reubeni,  Bereshith,  where  it  is  stated  tain  fpn  fniosa 
aiSjjja  "  Metathron  was  a  shoemaker."  Set  Sandal- 
phon  in  the  place  of  the  former,  and  in  Hebrew 
without  vowels  you  may  read  SandSiphonas  well  as 
Synadelphon,  and  then  take  to  it  that  the  Greek 
sandal  means  something  akin  to  shoes,  and  the  wit 
is  explained.  They  interchanged  those  names. 


338  ORIGIN  OF 

Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Hananiah,  Do  you  main- 
tain that  no  host  of  angels  twice  sing  the 
praise    of   the  Almighty,    but    that    God 
creates  daily  new  hosts  of  angels  who  sing 
his  praise  and  perish?    The  rabbi  affirmed 
and  then  the  emperor  asked,  where  do  they 
go  to?    To  the  place  from  which  they  were 
taken.    And  where  are  they  taken  from? 
From  the  stream  of  Dinur.    What  is  the 
nature  of  the  Dinur?    It  is  a  stream  like 
Jordan  which  never  ceases  to  flow,  not  by 
day  and  not  by  night.    Where  comes  the 
Dinur  from?    From  the  sweat  of  the  holy 
animals  which  bear  the  throne  of  the  Most 
High."    (Bereshith  RabbaTS.)    Here  then 
is  a  rabbi  who  evidently  did  not  at  all  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  angels,  and  he  is 
the  same  man  who  exclaimed  in  the  aca- 
demy of  Jamnia,  "We  pay  no  attention  to 
the  Bath  kol,"  i.  e.  to  the  Holy  Ghost.    This 
anecdote,  however,   shows  that  all  those 
rabbis    who  maintained  the    daily    crea- 
tion of  angels,  in  fact  believed  not  in  their 
existence,    and    symbolized    the  constant 
progression  of  creation  by  the  daily  crea- 
tion of  angels.    In  after  times  Rabbi  Helbo 
and  others  attempted  to  harmonize  these 
conflicting  views  of  the    ancient    rabbis, 
and  maintained  that  daily  new  angels  are 
created    except    those    mentioned  in  the 
Bible  besides  Metathron  and  Synadelphon 
(Yalkut  Reubeni  125) ;  but  it  is  with  this 
as  with  alUother  harmonizing  attempts, 
they  violate  truth  on  two  sides. 
Those  rabbis  believed,  nevertheless,  in 


CHRISTIANITY.  339 

the  existence  of  angels  and  demons,  but 
they  thought  all  of  them  were  human  souls 
who  had  lived  already  on  earth,  or  are  to  be 
born  hereafter.  They  maintain,  "All  souls 
that  were  on  earth  from  the  days  of  Adam, 
and  all  those  who  will  appear  on  it  here- 
after, were  created  when  the  world  was 
made,  and  they  are  now  in  Paradise." 
( Tanchuma  Pekudi.)  The  highest  of  heavens 
is  called  Araboth.  "  There  are  the  souls  of 
the  righteous,  and  also  those  spirits  and 
souls  that  will  hereafter  go  on  earth." 
(Hagigah  12  6.)  "There  is  a  treasury  in 
heaven  which  is  called  Guph,  there  are  all 
the  souls  of  those  to  be  born  hereafter,  and 
all  of  them  were  made  and  placed  there  in 
the  beginning."  (Rashi  to  Hagigah  5  «.) 
"  The  Lord  held  a  council  with  the  souls  of 
the  righteous,  and  then  he  created  the 
world."  (Bereshith  Babba  8.)  "The  soul 
dislikes  to  go  forth  from  behind  that  cur- 
tain, that  place  of  purity,  where  the  souls 
are  kept;"  therefore  it  is  said,  "Against 
thy  will  thou  art  formed,  against  thy  will 
thou  art  born,  against  thy  will  thou  livest," 
&c.  (Aboth  iv,  29.)  "Before  the  child  is 
born,  it  is  taught  the  whole  of  the  Law; 
when  it  enters  this  world,  an  angel  comes 
and  strikes  it  upon  its  mouth,  and  it  for- 
gets all."  (Nidda  30  6.)  "All  the  souls 
stood  at  Mount  Sinai  when  God  gave  the 
Law."  "The  son  of  David  (the  Messiah) 
will  not  come  before  all  the  souls  shall 
have  lived  in  bodies."  (Jebamoth  62  and 
elsewhere.)  These  pre-existing  souls  are 


340  ORIGIN  OF 

the  angels,  according  to  the  opinion  of  those 

rabbis,  and  the  returning  souls  attain  dif- 

lerent  degrees  among  the  heavenly  host, 

according  to  their  piety,  or  they  become 

demons  according  to  their  wickedness  on 

earth. 

Therefore  also  Metathron  and  Synadel- 
phon  must  be  men,  human  souls  that  have 
lived  on  earth  or  will  live  here  hereafter. 
And  so  they  are;  for  Metathron  is  the 
Enoch  of  the  Bible  (Genesis  v,  24)  and 
Synadelphon  is  the  prophet  Elijah.  This 
is  not  only  stated  in  the  Talmud  as  an  old 
tradition  (Jebainoth  16  6  and  elsewhere)  and 
repeated  often  in  the  cabalistic  works  ;  but 
it  was  so  commonly  known  that  thepseudo 
Jonathan  accepted  it  fully  in  his  Aramaic 
version  of  Genesis*  (v,  24.) 

Well,  then,  here  we  have  the  highest 
archangel,  who,  like  Paul's  "Son  of  God," 
was  first  a  man  on  earth.  Both  are  called 
Saar  Haolam,  "the  prince  of  the  wrorld," 
who  is  the  lord  of  all  things,  according  to 
Paul.  Both  are  called  Saar  fTappanifn, 
"the  prince  of  the  countenance,"  who 
stands  in  the  immediate  presence  of  the 
Most  High.  Both  are  called  mediators  who 
bring  the  prayers  of  man  before  God.  Also 
the  Greek  Meta  thronos  corresponds  pre- 
cisely to  Paul's  "  Son  of  God,"  who  occu- 
pies the  throne  of  power  with  God.  Paul's 
Son  of  God  is  simply  the  adoption  of  the 

nTiP  *npi   'ui  Nt^'ip::  -pjn  nVai  * 


CHRISTIANITY.  341 

rabbinical  Melathron  to  Peter's  crucified 
Messiah.  He  set  Jesus  in  place  of  Enoch 
and  united  it  with  the  redemption  theory 
of  Peter  by  the  death  of  the  Messiah.  The 
later  cabalists,  indeed,  called  Metathron, 
Isaiah,  Joshua  or  plainly  Jesus,  as  it  is  in 
some  Hebrew  prayer-books  for  the  New 
Year,  in  the  supplication  spoken  during 
the  pauses  of  the  cornet,  (Shofar)  blown  on 
this  day,  as  ordained  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Paul  divulged  the  mysteries  of  thePharisees 
on  many  occasions,  as  we  shall  see  here- 
after. This  Metathron  of  the  rabbis  or 
Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  is  not  God  accom- 
modated to  human  conceptions  and  finite 
creations,  as  the  second  Zeus,  the  son  of 
Chronos,  or  the  Logos  ;  it  is  plainly  a  hu- 
man being  which  rose  to  the  high  station 
of  the  highest  archangel  to  a  position  which 
Paul  designates  by  sonship  and  the  rabbis 
by  the  co-occupation  of  the  divine  throne. 
The  ideas  are  precisely  identical. 

This  gives  us  another  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  Paul  and  Acher.  Paul  was  un- 
doubtedly the  man  who  changed  Peter's 
crucified  Messiah,  of  which  the  Heathens 
understood  nothing,  into  the  "Son  of  God," 
terms  which  were  quite  familiar  to  the 
Gentiles  from  the  numerous  sons  of  the 
gods  in  mythology.  The  rabbis  on  their 
part  state  this  very  same  thing  to  have  been 
the  cause  of  Acher's  error  and  apostacy. 
They  tell  of  him,  when  he  was  in  Paradise 
or  in  heaven,  what  did  he  see  that  led  him 
into  error?  "  He  saw  Metathron  who  was 


342  ORIGIN  OF 

given  permission  to  sit  and  write  down  the 
merits  of  Israel,"  the  rabbis  reply,  and 
this  led  him  into  the  error  to  believe  in  two 
sovereign  powers.f  Precisely  so  Paul 
speaks  of  his  "Son  of  God,"  who  governs 
all  things,  God  excepted.J: 

The  Gaon  Haya,  in  the  epistle  quoted 
above,  and  all  those  who  adopted  his  ex- 
position, fell  here  into  an  error.  He  says, 
"Acher  thought  that  there  are  two  sover- 
eign powers  in  heaven,  like  the  Magii  who 
believe  in  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman,  a  source 
of  goodness  and  a  source  of  evil,  a  habita- 
tion of  light  and  a  habitation  of  darkness." 
From  this  statement  most  all  of  his  read- 
ers inferred  that  Acher  believed  in  a  good 
principle  and  a  bad  one,  as  the  two  sover- 
eign powers  in  heaven,  God  and  the  devil. 
But  this  is  incorrect;  for  the  Talmud  as- 
cribes his  error  to  Metathron  whom  he  saw 
sitting  in  heaven,  and  Metathron  is  an 
archangel  of  goodness  only,  wherever  he 
is  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  or  the  Cabalah 
Metathron  is  the  direct  opposite  of  Samael, 

KHagigah  15  a)  U1  nKln   p,,^    fronTNT    mOBD    D?n 


{  It  appears  to  us  that  the  Yerushalmi  (ibid.)  omit- 
ting this  passage  of  the  Babli,  replaces  it  by  still  more 
explicit  words.  It  asks  first.  ''Who  was  Acher?" 
and  gives  then  one  answer,  and  then  another  which 
signifies  the  same  as  the  one  given  in  the  Babli.  It 
states  Pi  NH  in  is  *?£>  W  na^DJJ  '•OTIC'  "  He  cor- 
rupted the  work  of  Jesus."  Jesus  is  frequently 
called  in  the  Talmud,  Otho  Jfaish,  "  That  man  ;"  and 
Paul  changed  entirely  the  work  of  Jesus  and  his 
apostles.  Thus  we  have  direct  proef  in  the  Talmud 
of  the  identity  of  Paul  and  Acher. 


CHKISTIANITY.  343 

the  evil  one,  the  destroyer,  and  the  Yalkut 
(hadash  73)  states  very  aptly,  "  The  rod  of 
Moses  was  cut  from  *  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge,' which  is  composed  of  Metathron 
and  Samael."  Acherand  Paul  taught  two 
good  and  just  sovereign  powers  in  heaven 
and  we  will  attempt  to  explain  the  idea  in 
another  chapter.  It  is  true  what  the  an- 
cient rabbis  said  against  this :  DON^D  w  rx 
nru« -iroa  ovpBiPo  "Two  kings  can  not  rule 
with  one  crown,"  there  can  not  co-exist  two 
sovereign  powers  in  the  same  sphere  ;  but 
this  is  not  the  only  contradiction  in  Paul's 
system.  He  spoke  to  no  philosophers  ;  and 
his  hearers  were  used  to  mysteries. 

Characteristic  of  the  deep  regret  which 
the  ancient  rabbis  felt  at  Paul's  apostacy  is 
the  following  addition  in  the  Babli  to  the 
story  of  the  four  who  were  in  the  Paradise. 
Paul's  error,  they  say,  arose  from  th3  fact 
that  Metathron  sat  in  heaven,  as  is  inti- 
mated in  the  name,  while  usually  he  stands 
before  God.  This  points  distinctly  to  the 
two  different  expressions  of  the  Christian 
writers,  "  Jesus  standing  before  God  "  and 
"  Jesus  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.' 
The  rabbis  furthermore  say,  Metathron 
was  permitted  to  sit,  because  just  then  "  he 
wrote  down  the  merits  of  Israel;"  but 
when  he  is  not  thus  employed  he  stands 
before  God  like  the  other  angels.  This 
again  is  directed  against  Paul  who  main- 
tained the  Law  and  the  Covenant  were 
abrogated.  The  distinction  was  taken  from 
Israel  and  given  to  the  believing  Gentiles. 


344  ORIGIN  OF 

Next  they  add  that  Metathron,  because  he 
led  Paul  into  error  in  not  rising  before  God 
when  the  latter  saw  him,  was  severely 
punished  in  heaven ;  he  was  flogged  with 
fiery  rods  This  is  intended  to  express  the 
regret  of  the  Almighty  himself  at  the  error 
and  apostacy  of  Paul.  It  is  expressed  in 
their  own  allegorical  manner,  but  it  is  done 
impressively  and  clearly. 

Another  addition  of  the  Babli  to  that 
story  must  be  considered  here.  Rabbi 
Akiba,  the  same  who  went  into  the  Para- 
dise and  out  of  it  in  peace,  said  to  the  other 
three  who  went  in:  "  If  you  will  reach  a 
place  of  pure  marble  stones,  say  not  water, 
water;  because  it  is  said  in  Scriptures 
(Psalm  101,)  He  who  saith  lies  is  not  accept- 
able in  my  sight."  This  passage,  being  in 
the  Babli  only,  appears  at  once  as  a  later 
addition  to  the  original  tradition.  It  may 
be  intended  to  caution  against  premature 
conclusions  in  metaphysics,  not  to  take 
marble  for  water  on  account  of  the  color, 
or  in  other  words,  not  to  be  misled  by  ac- 
cidents to  hasty  conclusions  on  the  nature 
of  the  substance.  It  may  be  a  caution 
against  gnosticism  with  its  hyla,  as  Dr. 
Graetz  maintains ;  especially  as  we  know 
that  Paul,  like  Rabbi  Akiba,  was  at  one 
time  strongly  inclined  to  that  system  of 
which  he  has  manj7  a  fragment  in  his 
epistles.  But  it  changes  by  no  means  the 
character  of  the  original  tradition.  All  the 
talmudical  passages,  which  Dr.  Graetz 


CHRISTIANITY.  345 

quotes*  as  pointing  to  the  dualism  of  the 
gnostics,  point  with  much  more  certainty 
to  the  Paul  Christians,  na  !  U;  their  dualism 
of  Father  and  Son.  Thi*  Ls  -  specially  sup- 
ported by  the  term  Mccn  ti^cd  m  connection 
with  those  dualists.  Dr.  Gractz  himself 
acknowledged  (ibid.  p.  10)  that  this  term 
refers  to  a  Jewish  Christian  sect  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century,  to  which  he 
quotes  the  testimony  of  Hieronimusf  who, 
from  his  Roman  and  Trinitarian  point  of 
view,  called  the  Miuaeans,  the  original 
Paul  Christians  "  neither  Jews  nor  Chris- 
tians," as  was  done  in  the  Church  to  the 
original  Peter  Christians,  the  Ebionites 
and  the  Nazarenes  who  were  excommuni- 
cated. 

The  story  of  Paul's  or  Acher's  circum- 
cision narrated  in  the  Yerushalmi%  is  evi- 
dently fabulous,  and  is  narrated  to  a  cer- 
tain purpose.  It  says  there:  "  Abuah,  the 
father  of  Elisha,  was  one  of  the  great  men 
of  Jerusalem.  On  the  day  of  his  sou's  cir- 
cumcision he  invited  all  the  great  men  of 
Jerusalem,  and  .entertained  them  in  one 
house,  and  the  Rabbis  Eliezer  and  Joshua 
in  another.  During  the  meal  the  guests 
sang,  clapped  hands  and  danced.  Then 

*Gnosticismus  und  Judenthum  von  Dr.  Hirsch 
Graetz,  Krotoschin  1846. 

t  "Usque  hodie  per  totas  orientis  Synagogas  inter 
Judaeas  haeresis  est,  quae  dicitur  Minaeoi-um  et  e 
Pbarisaeis  usque  nune  demantus,  quos  vulgo  Naza- 
raeae  nuncupant— sed  nect  Judaei,  sunt  uec  Chrls- 
tiani  (Epistol.  80.) 

J  Yenuhalmt,  Hagigah  ii,  1 ;  Mldrath  JRabbah  to 
Ruth  v.  Yalkut  SMmoni  974. 

23 


340  ORIGIN  OF 

Rabbi  Eliezer  said  to  Rabbi  Joshua,  while 
they  are  engaged  in  their  way  let  us  engage 
in  ours.  So  they  began  to  expound  the 
Law,  from  the  Law  they  came  to  the 
Prophets,  and  from  the  Prophets  to  the 
Hiogfrrfphy,  so  that  fire  came,  down  from 
heaven  and  enveloped  them.  Then  Abuah 
said  to  them  :  Rabbis,  did  you  come  to 
burn  down  my  house  over  me?  By  no 
means,  they  replied ;  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Biography,  and  the  words  thereof  have 
become  as  glad  as  they  were  on  the  day  of 
their  giving  from  Sinai,  and  they  appeared 
in  flames  as  they  did  appear  from  Sinai. 
Then  Abuah  said  unto  them,  Rabbis,  as 
the  power  of  the  Law  is  so  great,  if  this,  my 
son,  be  spared  unto  me,  he  shall  be  a  stu- 
dent of  the  Law.  But  because  his  inten- 
tions were  not  purely  for  the  merits  of 
the  Law  itself  (being  motives  of  honor) 
the  Law  did  him  (the  son)  no  good." 

Acher  himself  is  represented  to  have 
told  this  story ;  still  it  can  be  fabulous  only. 
The  tendency  or  the  moral  of  this  fable  is 
easily  discovered.  Those  rabbis  could  not 
imagine  how  a  man  of  Paul's  learning  and 
sagacity  could  desert  the  cause  of  Israel, 
as  they  thought  knowledge  was  the  surest 
factor  to  lead  one  to  virtue  and  righteous- 
ness. Therefore  Paul's  fault  must  have 
laid  in  the  impious  intentions  of  his  father 
who  devoted  him  to  the  study  of  the  Law 
on  account  of  the  honor  it  confers.  The 
Babli,  however,  asks  this  very  question  and 


CHKISTIANITY.  347 

answers  it  without  story  and  without  as- 
cribing Paul's  apostacy  to  his  father's  im- 
pure motives.  033*73  nrpn  WB  "They  had  a 
bile  in  their  heart,"  it  says  of  those  who 
went  astray,  and  then  it  states  of  Paul  that 
he  was,  in  his  youth,  too  much  addicted  to 
Grecian  literature.  The  Yerushalmi  itself 
does  not  take  the  circumcision  story  for 
granted ;  for  a  little  below  it  tells  other 
stories  with  the  same  tendency  precisely  to 
account  for  Paul's  apostacy,  after  it  has 
narrated  that  which  we  stated  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter,  viz:  the  tongue  of  Rabbi 
Judah  Hannahthum  or  the  death  of  Stephen 
as  the  New  Testament  has  it.  "Others' 
maintain,"  states  the  Yerushalmi,  "his^ 
mother  (Paul's)  when  she  was  pregnant 
with  him.  passed  the  temples  of  foreign 
worship  and  she  smelled  from  that  kind 
(or  from  that  apostate  which  m'ay'pointT  to 
Jesus  or  Peter)  and  that  flavor  permeated 
his  body  like  the  poison  of  a  serpent.1' 

Further  on,  on  the  same  page,  the  !T&-~ 
rushalmi  ascribes  the  apostacy  of  Ach$r,  tc,, 
another  cause  again.    "  He  once  s$&  and,-, 
studied  in  the  plain  of  Genesareuj_  'wbep..' 
he  saw  a  man  climbing  a  pairs-tree,  ana;,, 

SlDi:<1J»    "Valley    of   Nosar "     and,  a^t    "Garden., 

of  a  prince, "as  the  Concordance  fca5>lt.v  This  valley 
of  Nosar  was  in  that  plain  on  the  sea,  and  gave  the- 
name  to  the  whole.  Not  without  £aus.e.  the  Yeru* 
shalmt  points  to  this  place,  as  the  JQcaMjfcy  where 
Aeher's  doubts  on  the  law  begau.  'Tlhis  spot  is 
quoted  in  the  Gospels  as  the  place  whei^e  Jesus 
wrought  miracles.  Matthew  :tu:  34  ;:A[»rl$  vi,'58  and 
elsewhere,  and  the  sea  of  G^nesaret "^ as. his  faypritq 

23* 


348  ORIGIN  OF 

taking  off  a  bird's  nest,  with  the  old  and 
the  young  ones,  and  he  escaped  unhurt. 
Next  day  he  saw  another  man  climbing  a 
palm-tree  and  taking  off  a  bird's  nest,  but 
he  chased  off  the  old  one  and  took  the  young. 
When  he  came  down  a  serpent  bit  him, 
and  he  died.  Then  Acher  said  to  himself, 
the  Law  states,  'Thou  shalt  surely  chase 
away  the  old  one  and  the  young  ones  thou 
niayest  take,  that  it  be  well  unto  thee  and 
thy  days  be  prolonged.'  Where  is  the 
promised  reward  of  this  man?"  This 
looks  exactly  like  Paul  who  declared  the 
Law  abrogated,  in  support  of  which  the 
Yerushalmi  tells  other  stories  of  Acher, 
which  we  will  review  hereafter. §  Never- 
theless it  is  evident  that  all  these  stories 
are  intended  in  reply  to  the  one  query, 
which  the  Babli  briefly  and  naturally  an- 
swers, viz:  the  cause  of  Acher's  apostacy 
or  Paul's  conversion,  notwithstanding  his 
eminent  learning,  was  the  natural  inclina- 
tion and  the  early  occupation  with  Grecian 
literature.  Anecdotes  are  made  up  for  a 
certain  tendency  as  the  fable  is  made  to 
present  certain  moral  lessons.  Therefore 

?  It  also  reminds  one  forcibly  of  the  symptoms 
of  Mecnim,  who  were  Christians,  although  the  name 
was  afterward  applied  to  all  sorts  of  schismatics,  viz: 
•pcm  ipvp  "NDX  p  *??•  Those  who  say,  "  Thy  mer- 
cies extend  to  the  bird's  nest."  It  is  in  the  first  place 
the  plural  of  "  Thy  mercies,"  and  in  the  second  place 
the  abrogation  of  the  law  quoted  above,  replaced  by 
the  general  principle  of  love,  an  innovation  which 
belongs  to  Paul  and  to  him  only. 


CHRISTIANITY.  349 

the  above  anecdotes  have  no  historical 
value,  except  in  as  far  as  they  point  out 
the  identity  of  Paul  and  Acher,  which 
must  have  been  acknowledged  by  the  au- 
thors of  those  stories.  The  death  of  Ste- 
phen or  Rabbi  Judah  Hannahthum  being 
among  these  stories  has  only  this  prefer- 
ence that  it  is  narrated  in  two  different 
sources,  the  Talmud  and  the  Acts. 

Before  we  conclude  this  chapter,  we  must 
make  some  remarks  on  dates,  names  and 
places.  Paul  was  born  about  30  A.  C., 
therefore  he  never  states  that  he  saw  Jesus 
or  ever  heard  of  him  in  his  younger  days. 
This  can  not  be  otherwise,  for  the  story  of 
Stephen's  deaih  follows  the  second  persecu- 
tion, which  took  place  about  50  A.  C.,  and 
then  Paul  was  a  young  man,  say  about 
twenty  years.  He  certainly  was  no  older. 
Therefore  Paul  was  a  \'ounger  cotemporary 
of  Rabbi  Akiba,  as  Acher  is  always  repre- 
sented to  have  been.  Rabbi  Akiba  died  at 
an  age  of  120  years,  the  Talmud  maintains, 
by  the  hands  of  Hadrian's  executioners, 
in  the  year  134,  as  both  Jost  and  Gractz 
have  it ;  hence  he  was  born  14  A.  C.,  and 
was  sixteen  years  older  than  Paul.  The 
origin  of  Christianity  took  place  in  his  life- 
time. 

Therefore  Rabbi  Mair  can  as  well  have 
been  a  pupil  of  Paul  (Acher)  as  he  was  of 
Rabbi  Akiba,  which  was  never  denied. 
Rabbi  Mair  died  about  150  A.  C.  in  Asia 
Minor,  somewhere  near  the  sea  coast.  (See 
Yerushalmi  kilaim,  the  end.)  If  he  lived  to 


350  ORIGIN  OF 

the  age  of  eighty  he  was  born  when  Paul 
was  forty  and  Rabbi  Akiba  fifty-six  years 
old,  and  may  have  listened  to  the  wisdom 
of  both  before  Paul  was  sixty  and  Rabbi 
Akiba  seventy-six.  Acher,  according  to 
Dr.  Graetz,  lived  during  the  persecutions 
under  Hadrian.  So  may  Paul  have  as  well 
as  Rabbi  Akiba,  although  this  statement  of 
Dr.  Gr.  is  not  certain.  Chronological  diffi- 
culties against  the  identity  of  Paul  and 
Acher  do  not  exist. 

But  there  is  the  other  difficulty.  The  rab- 
bis of  the  Talmud  state  Acher's  proper 
name  was  Elisha  ben  Abuah,  and  he  was 
born  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts  "  states  Paul's  name  was  Saul  and  he 
was  from  Tars  us.  The  question  is,  which  of 
the  two  is  right,  if  any  of  them  actually 
knew  his  name  and  birth-place?  Paul 
calls  himself  Paul  and  not  Saul  (in  his 
epistles,))  and  it  is  much  more  likely  that 
the  "  Saul  "  was  made  from  the  "  Paul  " 
than  vice  versa.  He  may  have  been  born  in 
Jerusalem  and  moved  to  Tarsus  with  his 
parents,  or  both  may  be  mistakes.  In  the 
face,  however,  of  all  the  accidental  and 
substantial  points  of  similarity  which  we 
kave  cited.,  the  identity  of  Paul  and  Acher 
is  established,  and  the  minor  points  will 
find  solution  hereafter,  as  we  proceed  with 
the  history  of  Paul.  This  chapter  will  en- 
able us  to  point  out  many  new  facts  which 
were  unknown  hitherto,  and  are  very  es- 
sential to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity  and  the  personal  his- 
tory of  Paul. 


CHRISTIANITY.  351 

CHAPTER  X. 
THE  CREED  OF  PAUL. 
Paul  was  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  not- 
withstanding all  the  statements  of  Luke  to 
the  contrary ;  for  he  himself  repeatedly 
and  emphatically  declares  this  fact,  and 
the  epistles  are  documents  much  more  re- 
liable than  the  Gospels  or  "  The  Acts."  He 
writes  to  the  Romans :  "  For  I  speak  to  you, 
Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am  the  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office."* 
(Rom.  xi,  13.)  Then  again  he  says  that  the 
grace  of  God  was  given  him ;  "  that  I  should 
be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, ministering  the  Gospel  of  God,  that 
the  offering  up  of  the  Gentiles  might  be 
acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Ibid,  xv,  16.)  He  continues 
(verse  18)  that  it  was  his  office  "  to  make 
the  Gentiles  obedient  by  word  and  deed.;" 
and  he  says  he  has  done  so  (verse  19,)  "  so 
that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  into 
Illyricum,  T  have  fully  preached  the  Gospel 
of  Christ."  He  writes  from  the  prisou  at 
Cesaria  to  the  Ephesians  (iii,  8,)  "  Unto  me 
who  am  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints  is 
this  grace  given,  that  I  should  preach 
among  the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches 
of  Christ."  Twice  he  tells  this  very  same 
thing  to  Timothy  (I  Tim.  ii,  7,  and  II  Tim. 
ii,  11,)  "1  am  ordained  a  preacher  and  an 
apostle,  (I  speak  the  truth  in  Christ  and  lie 

*  The  last  part  of  this  verse  should  be  rendered  "I 
consider  this  office  an  honor  to  myself." 


352  ORIGIN  OF 

not,)  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles  in  faith  and 

verity,  "f 

Paul  states  his  case  in  clear  words  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Galatians  (I  and  IE.)  There 
he  says  that  God  revealed  his  son  in  him, 
"  that  I  might  preach  him  among  the 
heathen."  Next,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
second  chapter,  he  states  in  unmistakable 
terms  that  Peter  and  his  co-laborers  were 
the  apostles  of  the  Jews  and  sent  to  the 
Jews  only  ;  while  he  (Paul)  was  the  only 
apostle  sent  to  the  Gentiles.  He  states 
there :  "  For  he  that  wrought  effectually  in 
Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision , 
the  same  was  mighty  in  me  toward  the 
Gentiles.  And  when  James,  Cephas  (Peter,) 
and  John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  per- 
ceived the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me, 
they  gave  to  me  and  to  Barnabas  the  right 
hands  of  fellowship,  that  we  should  go 
unto  the  heathen  and  they  unto  the  cir- 
cumcision." 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  with  his  con- 
ciliatory tendencies  invented  stories  in  con- 
tradiction of  Paul's  statements,  when,  in 
fact,  toward  the  end  of  Paul's  career,  the 
difficulties  were  not  settled.  The  original 
apostles  refused  to  acknowledge  Paul  as 
one  of  them  ;.  so  did  many  of  the  earlier 
Christian,  writers ;  and  the  superstition 

t  There  is  in  that  chapter,  verse  13,  a  peculiar  ex- 
pression of  Paul  which  proves  his  familiarity  with 
the  rabbinical  mysticism.  He  mentions  there  "  the 
whole  family  in  heaven,"  referring  to  the  heavenly 
host  precisely  in  the  words  of  the  rabbinical  mystics 


CHRISTIANITY.  353 

against  the  number  thirteen  is  still  alive  in 
all  Christendom  on  account  of  Paul  being 
the  thirteenth  apostle.  Therefore  Paul 
found  it  necessary  to  tell  so  often  and  em- 
phatically that  he  was  an  apostle.  When 
they  acknowledged  him,  it  was  only  as  an 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  because  they  could 
do  nothing  with  them  and  Paul  did,  and 
also  because  they  could  tolerate  the  Gospel 
without  the  Law,  as  Paul  preached  it,  only 
among  Gentiles  and  not  among  Jews. 
Therefore  they  finally,  though  reluctantly, 
acknowledged  Paul  the  apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles.J 

How  did  he  become  an  apostle  from  the 
beginning?  The  author  of  "  The  Acts" 
tells  a  story  that  Jesus  appeared  to  Paul 
in  a  most  extraordinary  vision  on  his  way 
to  Damascus,  upon  which  Mr.  Kenan 
builds  splendid  air  castles,  and  then  again 
Jesus  appeared  to  him  in  the  temple  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  appointed  him  the  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  a  fact  which  the  other  apostles 
were  so  slow  to  acknowledge.  Paul  him- 
self, in  his  epistles,  says  nothing  of  the 
martyrdom  of  Stephen,  nor  does  he  state 
anywhere  that  he  had  that  vision  on  his 
way  to  Damascus,  and  he  flatly  denies  the 
vision  in  the  temple.  He  says  he  was  not 
in  Jerusalem  until  three  years  after  his 
conversion,  (Galatians  i,  18,)  after  his  return 

J  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  might  be  considered 
as  a  contradiction  to  this  fact ;  but  it  is  decided  among 
modern  critics  that  the  said  epistle  was  not  written 
by  Paul  himself.  It  was  written  by  a  Paul-Christian 
long  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 


354  ORIGIN  OP 

from  Arabia;  and  Ihe  author  of  "The 
Acts  "  leads  him  to  Jerusalem  shortly  after 
his  conversion,  to  have  there  the  vision 
(Acts  ix,  26)  and  communication  with  the 
apostles.  Paul,  in  imitation  of  the  ]>rophet 
Jeremiah,  (Jerem.  i,  5,)  says:  "But  when 
it  pleased  God  who  separated  me  from  my 
mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  His  grace 
to  reveal  His  son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach 
him  among  the  heathen."  (Gal.  i,  15.) 
Thus  we  know  that  Paul  had  no  vision  ; 
all  the  visions  he  had  were  IN  HIM,  in- 
wardly and  not  outwardly.  The  precise 
nature  of  this  revelation  or  vision  IN  HIM 
has  been  explained  above,  it  was  when  he 
was  in  PABADISE  and  saw  METATHRON. 
So  Paul  was  an  apostle,  "  not  of  man, 
neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and 
God,  the  Father,"  (Ibid.i,  1,)  that  is  to  say, 
nobody  conferred  upon  him  the  apostolic 
dignity,  which  he  assumed  from,  his  own 
choice  and  free  will,  because  he  considered 
himself  called  and  destined  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  He  asked  no  per- 
mission and  received  no  instruction  of  any 
human  being;  he  acted,  spoke  and  taught 
all  original,  notwithstanding  all  the  pro- 
testations of  the  apostles  and  the  disciples 
of  Jesus.  The  author  of  "  The  Acts  ';  tells 
the  story  all  the  other  way ;  but  so  Paul 
tells  it,  and  we  naturally  prefer  his  own 
statements  about  himself  to  what  others 
said  of  him  post  festum. 

Paul's  pretensions  run  fully  as  high,  if 
not  higher,  as  those  of  the  gnostic  rabbis 


CHRISTIANITY.  355 

who  said,  "The  wise  man  is  preferable  to 
the  prophet."  He  considers  his  words 
commandments  of  the  Lord,  which  no 
prophet  dare  contradict.  He  says  to  the 
Corinthians:  "What!  came  the  word  of 
God  out  of  you?  If  any  man  think  him- 
self to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him 
acknowledge  that  the  things  I  write  to  you 
are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord." 
(I  Cor.  xiv,  37.)  He  claims  more  glory  than 
Moses,  and  says,  if  Moses  was  a  glorious 
man,  "How  shall  not  the  ministration  of 
the  Spirit  be  rather  glorious?"  (II  Cor.  ii, 
8.)  Therefore  he  needed  no  epistles  of 
commendation  to  them,  and  letters  of  com- 
mendation from  them.  He  was  all  in  all 
himself,  in  direct  communication  with  the 
Deity  and  his  direct  messenger.  "  I  sup- 
pose," he  exclaims,  "  I  was  not  a  whit  be- 
hind the  chiefest  apostles."  (II  Cor.  xi,  5.) 
"Are  they  Hebrews?"  he  says  of  the 
apostles,  "so  am  I.  Are  they  Israelites? 
so  am  I.  Are  they  the  seed  of  Abraham  ? 
so  am  I.  Are  thej*  ministers  of  Christ? 
lam  more."  (Ibid.)  "In  nothing  am  I 
behind  the  "very  chiefest  apostles,  though  I 
be  nothing."  (Jbid.  xii,  11.)  It  must  be 
admitted  that  he  had  a  high  opinion  of 
himself  and  his  mission,  and  a  very  small 
one  of  his  opponents,  the  original  apostles. 
He  cautions  the  Phillippians,  "  Beware  of 
dogs,  beware  of  evil  workers,  beware  of 
the  concision  !"  (iii,  2,)  which  refers  to  his 
colleagues  from  Jerusalem  who  preached 
the  Law  and  circumcision.  He  exposes  the 


356  OKIGIN  OF 

hypocrisy  of  Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii,  12) 
with  the  recklessness  of, a  fierce  opponent. 
He  says  of  them,  (II  Corinthians  xi,  13) : 

"  For  such  are  false  apostles,  deceitful 
workers,  transforming  themselves  into  the 
apostles  of  Christ. 

"And  no  marvel;  for  Satan  himself  is 
transformed  into  an  angel  of  light." 

It  appears  he  did  not  care  for  the  Phari- 
sean  maxim  :  "  Let  the  honor  of  thy  com- 
panion be  as  dear  to'  thee  as  thy  own." 

The  difficulties  of  Paul  with  the  apostles 
were  chiefly  about  the  Law  and  circumci- 
sion, which  he  abolished  and  the  others  re- 
tained, as  we  shall  see  below.  But  there 
was  also  some  worldly  cause  at  the  bottom. 
He  claimed  the  congregations  which  he 
converted  as  his  bishoprick,  he  was  their 
apostle,  their  father  and  their  head,  and 
they  were  his  children,  his  portion,  bis 
pride,  his  own,  whom  he  admonished  to 
pay  good  wages  to  his  co-laborers,  of  which 
he  did  not  forget  to  take  his  due  portion. 
Like  a  good  Pharisean  lawyer  he  argues 
thus  for  the  wages  of  those  who  preach  the 
Gospel  without  forgetting  to  administer  a 
blow  upon  Peter,  the  brothers  of  Jesus, 
and  the  other  apostles  who,  living  on  the 
fat  of  the  congregations,  still  stretched  out 
their  hands  after  his  bishoprick.  He  says 
this  (I  Corinthians  ix,  3  to  15) : 

"  Mine  answer  to  them  that  do  examine 
me  is  this  :  Have  we  not  power  to  eat  and 
to  drink  ?  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about 
a  sister,  a  wife,  as  well  as  other  apostles, 
and  as  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and  Ce- 
phas? Or  I  only  and  Barnabas,  have  not 


CHRISTIANITY.  357 

we  power  to  forbear  working?  Who goeth 
a  warfare  any  time  at  bis  own  charges  ? 
who  planteth  a  vineyard,  and  eateth  not  of 
the  fruit  thereof  ?  or  who  feedeth  a  flock, 
and  eateth  not  of  the  milk  of  the  flock  ? 
Say  I  these  things  as  a  man  ?  or  saith  not 
the  law  the  same  also  ?  For  if  it  is  written 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  Thou  shalt  not  muz- 
zle the  mouth  of  the  ox  that  treadeth  out 
the  corn.  Doth  God  take  care  for  oxen  ? 
Or  saith  he  it  altogether  for  our  sakes? 
For  our  sakes,  no  doubt,  this  is  written  ; 
that  he  that  plougheth  should  plough  in 
hope ;  and  that  he  that  thresheth  in  hope 
should  be  partaker  of  his  hope.  If  we  have 
sown  unto  you  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great 
thing  if  we  shall  reap  your  carnal  things? 
If  others  be  partakers  of  this  power  over 
you,  are  not  we  rather?  Nevertheless  we 
have  not  used  this  power ;  but  suffer  all 
things,  lest  we  should  hinder  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  Do  ye  not  know  that  they  which 
minister  about  holy  things  live  of  the 
things  of  the  temple,  and  they  which  wait 
at  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar? 
Even  so  hath  the  Lord  ordained  that 
they  which  preach  the  gospel  should 
live  of  the  gospel.  But  I  have  iTse4  none 
of  these  things  :  neither  have  I  written 
these  things,  that  it  should  be  so  done  unto 
me  :  for  it  were  better  for  me  to  die  than 
that  any  man  should  make  my  glorying 
void." 

It  appears,  indeed,  that  he  received  no 
wages  of  the  Corinthians,  as  said  in  the 
above  passage,  for  he  tells  them  the  same 
thing  over  in  other  words  (II  Corinthians 
7,  8,)  "Have  I  committed  an  offence  in 
abasing  myself  that  ye  might  be  exalted, 
because  I  have  preached  to  you  the  Gospel 
of  God  freely?  I  ROBBED  OTHER  CHURCHES, 

TAKING      AVAGES       OF     THEM,     TO     DO       YOU 


358  ORIGIN  OP 

SERVICE."  Then  he  promises  them  that  he 
would  not  call  on  them  for  any  aid  or  com- 
fort, as  he  had  never  done  before.  It  ap- 
pears that  the  Corinthians  did  not  like  the 
idea  of  paying,  and  he  could  not  argue  it 
Into  their  heads,  although  the  other 
churches  paid  him  his  wages,  to  which  he 
frequently  admonishes  them.  In  this  mat* 
ter  he  respected  the  Pharisean  maxim, 
"Where  there  is  no  flour  (no  support)  there 
can  be  no  instruction,"  and  the  bishops  all 
over  Christendom  reverently  bow  at  Paul's 
arguments  for  their  wages. 

What  kind  of  a  gospel  did  Paul  preach 
to  the  Gentiles?  In  his  epistles— and  that 
is  all  we  know  about  him — he  evinces  or 
assumes  an  entire  ignorance  of  the  gospel 
story.  He  never  mentions  with  one  word 
the  marvelous  conception,  birth  and  youth 
of  Jesus;  not  a  word  of  all  his  miracles, 
speeches,  parables,  not  a  word  at  all  about 
him  or  bis  mother,  except  the  resurrection, 
and  that  either  he  or  the  others  did  not 
know  right.  He  quotes  always  and  exclu- 
sively from  the  Old  Testament;  not  with 
one  word  or  inference  does  he  mention  what 
Jesus  taught,  said  or  ordained.  He  argues 
all  his  questions  upon  biblical  grounds, 
attempts  to  explain  and  to  prove  from  the 
old  Bible,  and  has  not  a  word  to  say  about 
or  of  the  wisdom  of  him  in  whose  name  he? 
was  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  This  is  the- 
strangest  feature  in  the  literature  of  Paul. 
That  he  brought  and  taught  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  the  Gentiles  who  did  not  have  it  or 


CHRISTIANITY.  359 

hear  it  before  he  came,  is  evident  by  his 
numerous  quotations  from  it  in  his  epistles. 
He  presumes  two  things — that  all  his  read- 
ers know  the  Old  Testament,  and  all  of 
them  have  accepted  it  as  the  word  of  God  ; 
or  else  he  could  not  quote  from  it  as  freely 
as  he  did,  nor  could  he  argue  from  it  with- 
out any  other  proof  or  evidence.  But  which 
is  the  gospel  he  brought  and  taught  them  ? 

Before  his  conversion,  Paul  persecuted 
the  admirers  of  Jesus  with  as  fierce  a  fanat- 
icism, as  he  afterward  opposed  the  Law 
and  the  circumcision*  Therefore  he  could 
not  have  much  of  a  knowledge  of  the 
gospel  story.  After  he  was  converted,  he 
states  explicitly,  he  had  no  communication 
with  any  of  the  apostles  or  any  of  the 
Christians  of  Palestine/  "I  conferred  not 
with  flesh  asd  blood,"  says  hej  "neither 
went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them  which 
were  apostles  before  me/'  *  *  *  "Then 
after  three  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
see  Peter,  and  abode  with  him  fifteen 
days.  But  other  of  the  apostles  saw 
I  none,  save  James,  the  Lord's  brother." 
*  *  #  "And  was  unknown  by  face  unto 
the  churches  of  Judea."  (Galat.  i,  16  )  He 
read  no  account  of  the  gospel  story  and  re- 
peatedly asserts  that  his  gospel  was  orig- 
inal, not  of  man. 

This  proves,  by  no  means,  that  the  orig- 
inal apostles  had  no  manuscript  gospel;  it 
only  proves  that  Paul  did  not  know  it,  and 
did  not  wish  to  know  it.  "  Gospel  "  is  the 
equivalent  for  the  Greek  Evangelion,  which 


360  ORIGIN  OF 

is  a  translation  of  avd  *ia»^a  in  Isaiah  lii,  7: 
"  How  beautiful  are  upon  the  mountains 
the  feet  of  the  messenger  of  good  tidings, 
that  publisheth  peace,  that  announceth 
tidings  of  happiness,  that  publisheth  salva- 
tion, that  saith  unto  Zion,  Thy  God  reign- 
el  h."  The  apostles  took  this  to  be  a  proph- 
ecy, pointing  directly  and  exclusively  to 
them ;  because  their  main  office  was  the 
publication  of  "  good  tidings."  These 
"  good  tidings  "  consisted  of  the  message, 
the  Messiah  has  come,  he  died  for  the  sins 
of  man,  he  will  return  to  establish  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  and  the  throne  of 
David,  remission  of  sins  and  salvation  are 
promised  to  all  who  believe  it  and  repent 
their  sins.  This  was  the  gospel.  The 
gospel  story  or  the  biography  of  Jesus  and 
his  speeches,  parables,  miracles,  &c.,  were 
immaterial  to  the  gospel  itself.  It  was  not 
at  all  necessary  to  know  or  to  believe  them 
in  order  to  believe  or  preach  the  gospel. 
This  was  an  alleged  fact  independent  of  the 
former,  except  the  allegation  of  the  Mes- 
siah's moral  purity.  This  was  so  brief  a 
story  that  Paul  and  everybody  else  who 
had  once  heard  of  it  must  have  known  it. 
It  appears  that  this  was  all  Paul  did  know 
of  the  gospel. 

Next  came  the  attempts  to  have  Jesus 
teach,  by  word,  by  symbolical  performances 
or  real  deeds,  the  doctrines  which  those  ad- 
vanced who  taught  in  his  name.  The 
variety  of  doctrines  and  maxims  taught  in 
his  name  gave  rise  to  a  variety  of  speeches, 


CHRISTIANITY.  361 

parables  and  anecdotes,  which  were  added 
to  the  original  life  of  Jesus.  The  polemics 
between  Christians  and  Jews,  as  also 
among  the  apostles  themselves,  gave  rise 
to  another  class  of  anecdotes  in  imitation 
of  Scriptural  passages,  ("  that  it  be  ful- 
filled,") to  vindiciiie  i he  Messianic  charac- 
tef  of  Jesus;  and  LUIS  class  of  anecdotes 
again,  invented  by  various  preachers  of 
the  new  faith  at  different  times  and  places, 
were  added  to  the  original  life  of  Jesus. 
Therefore  as  the  different  teachers  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  taught  different  doctrines 
and  maxims,  and  had  different  polemics, 
they  necessarily  had  also  different  gospels, 
or  rather  different  gospel  stories,  so  that 
"  each  had  a  gospel  of  his  own,"  as  Paul 
says. 

The  original  apostles  and  their  immediate 
disciples  who  maintained  to  teach  and  to 
preach  only  what  they  learned  of  their 
master,  from  his  words  or  his  deeds,  must 
necessarily  have  had  a  gospel  story,  which 
each  represented  and  enlarged  to  suit  the 
doctrines  he  taught,  and  the  emergencies 
which  sprung  up  on  his  field  of  labor. 
Paul,  however,  did  not  stand  in  need  of 
any  gospel  story,  for  he  had  neither  seen 
nor  heard  Jesus  himself,  nor  did  he  pretend 
to  teach  what  Jesus  said ;  he  claims  to  an- 
nounce what  God  revealed  to  him  in  visions 
or  in  Paradise,  concerning  Jesus  and  the 
entire  province  of  religion.  The  author  of 
"  The  Acts"  narrates  that  Jesus  appeared 
to  Paul,  but  ke  states  not  that  he  said  a  nv 
24 


362  ORIGIN  OF 

thing  to  the  new  apostle,  except  -what  con- 
cerned Jesus  himself  as  the  resurrected 
one.  This,  however,  is  only  one  point  in 
the  doctrines  of  Paul ;  the  others— this  also 
the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  must  admit — 
are  Paul's,  and  he  says  they  were  revealed 
to  him  by  God,  he  had  not  heard  them 
either  of  Jesus  or  of  his  apostles.  There- 
fore Paul  had  no  need  of  any  gospel  story, 
any  miracles,  for  he  considered  himself  a 
living  miracle,  or  any  knowledge  of  Jesus, 
except  that  he  rose  from  death  as  the  first 
fruit  of  resurrection.  Therefore  he  never 
mentions  any  gospel  stories  or  gospel 
miracles,  nor  does  he  pretend  to  have 
wrought  any  miracles,  although  he  has 
frequent  occasion  to  glorify  himself,  or  to 
believe  that  others  did.  He  was  a  remark- 
able conglomeration  of  rationalism  and 
mysticism,  like  numerous  prominent  rab- 
bis of  the  Talmud  and  cotemporaries  of 
Paul. 

Nevertheless,  Paul  preaching  the  gospel, 
must  have  been  under  the  necessity  to  give 
some  account  of  the  life  of  Jesus  to  his 
hearers  and  his  disciples.  Although  it  is 
impossible  to  ascertain  now  his  version  of 
the  story  ;  thus  much,  however,  is  certain, 
that  it>  was  in  conformity  with  his  peculiar 
doctrines,  hence  in  opposition  to  the  other 
gospels.  When  after  the  death  of  the 
apostles,  the  various  gospel  anecdotes  were 
collected,  the  original  gospel  story  was  en- 
riched and  embellished  with  them  accord- 
ing to  the  stand-point  of  each  compiler. 


CHRISTIANITY.  363 

So  Matthew  and  Mark  embellished  the 
original  story  from  a  Jewish-Christian 
stand-point  without  refusing  all  the  Paul 
portions,  if  they  were  not  added  by  later 
transcribers.  Luke,  in  his  gospel  and  "  The 
Acts,"  is  the  conciliator.  While  he  adopts 
several  Paul  portions  and  expressions  in 
his  gospel,  he  invents  new  speeches,  meet- 
ings, stories  and  facts  for  "  The  Acts,"  in 
order  to  reconcile  Peter  and  Paul,  or  rather 
their  admirers  in  aftertimes.  John's  gospel, 
the  last  of  that  literature,  represents  most 
of  Paul's  conceptions,  with  a  slight  admix- 
ture of  other  anecdotes,  so  that  it  may 
properly  be  called  the  gospel  after  Paul's 
disciples  with  Alexandrian  eclectic  philo- 
sophical additions. 

The  sources  before  us  enable  us  not  to 
ascertain  the  full  gospel  story  which  Paul 
communicated  to  his  disciples  ;  neverthe- 
less his  epistles  enable  one  to  identify  the 
anecdotes,  speeches  and  parables  of  Jesus 
and  his  disciples,  to  which  the  doctrines  of 
Paul  gave  rise. 

Paul's  personal  views  on  the  gospel 
stories  are  expressed  in  his  words  to 
Timothy :  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still 
at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia, 
that  thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they 
teach  no  other  doctrine,  neither  give  heed 
to  fables  and  endless  genealogies,  which 
cause  controversies  rather  than  godly  edi- 
fying which  is  in  faith."  (IT  Timothy  i,  3, 
4.)  He  could  only  refer  to  fabulous  gospel 
stories  and  genealogies,  such  as  are  now 
24* 


364  ORIGIN  OF 

prefixed  to  Matthew's  and  Luke's  gospels. 

Therefore  in  order  to  follow  and  control 
the  statements  of  "  The  Acts,"  we  must 
first  be  acquainted  with  the  creed  of  Paul, 
as  he  represents  it  in  his  authentic  epistles. 

The  first  and  principal  doctrine  of  every 
religious  creed  is  God.  Paul's  doctrine  of 
God  is  neither  new  nor  any  wise  different 
from  that  of  the  Jews.  He  taught  the 
Gentiles  the  one,  omnipotent,  all-wise  and 
most  holy  God,  as  the  rest  of  the  Hebrews 
did.  In  a  moment  of  admiration,  Paul 
wrote  the  following  passage  composed  of 
Scriptural  verses :  "  O  the  depth  of  the 
riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge 
of  God!  how  unsearchable  are  his  judg- 
ments and  his  ways  past  finding  out !  For 
who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  or 
who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ?  or  who  ap- 
proached him  with  a  gift,  and  he  did  not 
recompense  unto  him  again  ?  For  of  him, 
and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all 
things;  to  him*  be  glory  for  ever."  (Ro- 
mans xi,  33.)  We  maintain  again,  with- 
out fear  of  contradiction,  that  Paul  was  a 
Unitarian  Jew,  as  strictly  so  as  any  Phari- 
sean  rabbi  or  high  priest.  He  added  noth- 
ing to  the  Scriptural  doctrines  concerning 
the  GREAT  I  AM.  All  Trinitarian  specu- 
lations are  of  post-evangelical  origin,  when 
pagans  heathenized  Christianity. 

Paul  knew  of  no  hell,  no  purgatory,  no 
.hell-fire  and  no  brimstone.  He  says :  "  For 
he  that  is  dead  is  freed  (justified  or  deliv- 
ered) from  sin."  All  the  ingenuity  of  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  365 

expounders  can  not  change  the  plain  sense 
of  this  passage,  which  is  a  flat  denial  of 
punishment  after  death,  except  on  the  day 
of  universal  resurrection  and  judgment. 
This  was  likewise  the  doctrine  of  some  rab- 
binical cotemporaries  of  Paul.  One  pas- 
sage of  the  Talmud,  which  occurs  frequently 
and  is  of  a  very  old  date,  must  be  men- 
tioned here.  We  quote  from  the  Yeru- 
shalmi  (  Yoma  viii,  8) :  "  Rabbi  Mathia  ben 
Harash  asked  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Azariali 
in  the  academy  :  Hast  thoo  heard  the  four 
modes  of  the  expiation  of  sins  which 
Rabbi  Ishmael  expounded  2*  B&e  a-nswered, 
there  were  but  three,  besides  repentance. 
There  are  the  following  four  passages  in 
Scriptures,  *  Return  ye  froward  children  ' 
— *  For  this  day  I  will  be  atoned  unto  you  ' 
—'And  I  will  visit  with  the  rod  their  trans- 
gression ' — '  I  will  not  forgive  them  this 
iniquity  until  they  die.'  These  must  be 
explained  thus  :  If  one  fails'  to  do  what  is 
commanded,  and  he  repents  his  negligence 
of  duty,  God  forgives  him  instantly,  as 
Scriptures  state,  *  Return  ye  froward  chil- 
dren.' If  one  transgresses  a  divine  pro- 
hibition, and  instantly  he  repent  his  mis- 
deed ;  the  repentance  partly  expiates  the 
sin,  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  completes 
the  expiation,  as  Scriptures  state,  '  For  on 
this  day  I  will  be  atoned  unto  you.'  If 
one  transgresses  biblical  laws,  to  which 

*  Rabbi  Ishmael  was  a  cotemporary  of  Paul..  Ac- 
cording to  another  version  of  the  story,  Rabbi  Ish- 
mael made  this  statement  before  the  "Elders  of 
Home."  Was  it  not  made  in  opposition  to  Paul's 
theory  of  salvation? 


366  ORIGIN  OF 

the  Bible  threatens  the  punishment  of 
being  '  cut  off,'  or  of  death,  and  he  did  it 
with  forethought ;  repentance  and  the  Day 
of  Atonement  only  in  part  expiate  the  sin, 
and  affliction  completes  the  expiation,  as 
Scriptures  state,  'And  I  will  visit  with  the 
rod  their  transgression.'  But  if  by  one  the 
name  of  God  be  profaned,  repentance,  Day 
of  Atonement  and  affliction  only  partly  ex- 
piate the  SMI,  death  only  completes  the  ex- 
piation, as  Scriptures  state,  '  I  will  not  for- 
give them  this  iniquity  until  they  die.' 
Thus  we  know  that  death  expiates." 


This  is  also  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  death 
expiates  all  sins  :  "  He  that  is  dead  is  freed 
from  sin."  Death  is  the  last  and  most  se- 
vere punishment  for  the  wicked ;  the  re- 
ward of  the  righteous  conies  in  the  resur- 
rection, and  the  life  after  that  event. 

In  the  doctrine  of  resurrection,  Paul  is 
again  the  orthodox  Pharisee.  While  the 
Pharisees  maintained  "All  Israelites  have 
part  in  the  future  world,"  although  they 
except  some  evil-doers,  and  also  think  "  the 
pious  heathens  have  part  in  the  future 
world;"  Paul  reversed  it  and  -maintained, 
all  Christians  will  resurrect  from  death, 
and  those  living  on  that  eventful  day  will 
be  changed  into  immortal  beings,  without 
denying  this  particular  blessing  to  the  Jew 
or  to  the  pious  heathen.  "We  shall  not 
all  sleep,"  said  Paul,  i.  e  we  shall  not  all 
die  before  the  day  of  resurrection,  "  but  we 
shall  all  be  changed."  (I  Corin.  xv,  51.) 


CHRISTIANITY.  367 

To  this  must  be  taken  the  following : 
"  Glory,  honor  and  peace,  to  every  man 
that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first  and  also 
to  the  Gentile  :  For  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons  with  God.  For  as  many  as  have 
sinned  without  law,  shall  also  peri-sh  with- 
out law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in 
the  law,  shall  be  judged  by  the  law.  For 
not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before 
God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  just- 
ified. For  when  the  Gentiles  which  have 
not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  con- 
tained in  the  law,  they  having  not  the  law 
are  a  law  unto  themselves:  Which  show 
the  demands  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  wit- 
ness, while  their  thoughts  accuse  or  excuse 
one  another;  in  the  day  when  God  shall 
judge  the  secrets'of  men  by  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  my  gospel."  (Romans  ii, 
10,  &c.) 

This  informs  us  in  regard  to  heathens 
that  Paul  held  the  same  doctrine  as  the 
other  Pharisees.  The  Gentiles  who  by  na- 
ture do  the  thing  contained  in  the  law,  are 
identical  with  oity  mow  H'Wi  "  The  pious 
ones  among  the  Gentiles,"  who  have 
"part  in  the  future  world,"  according 
to  the  Pharisees,  or  they  shall  be  present 
"  On  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  se- 
crets of  man, "as  Paul  has  it.  Both  ex- 
pressions signify  the  same.  The  wicked 
Gentiles  are  lost  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  "  shall  also  perish 
without  law,"  as  Paul  has  it,  which  again 


368  ORIGIN  OF 

is  identical.  The  Jew,  however,  who 
sinned  in  the  law,  does  not  perish  alto- 
gether as  the  wicked  Gentile  does ;  he 
"shall  be  judged  by  the  law"— "On  the 
day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of 
men."  Hence  we  know  Paul's  doctrine 
was,  that  all  Christians,  all  Jews  and  all 
pious  Heathens  will  resurrect.  What  that 
judgment  of  the  wicked  Jews  will  be  after 
the  resurrection  he  did  not  tell. 

No  wonder  that  during  the  lifetime  of 
Paul,  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  besides 
other  Christians,  (II  Timothy  ii,  17,)  and 
the  Gnostics,  especially  the  Marcionites, 
after  the  apostle's  death,  denied  his  doctrine 
of  resurrection ;  when  among  the  Jews 
themselves,  the  Essenes  believed  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  only,  as  indeed 
very  many  Pharisees  did,  and  the  belief 
of  the  Sadducees  in  this  matter  is  un- 
known to  this  day. 

The  resurrected  or  changed  ones  should 
be  given  an  incorruptible  and  spiritual 
body,  Paul  teaehes,  notwithstanding  the 
contradiction  of  terms.  "  Flesh  and  blood 
can  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
neither  doth  corruption  inherit  in- 
corruption,"  *  *  *  "  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be 
changed.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on 
iucorruption,"  &c.,  then  "  Death  is  swal- 
lowed up  in  victory."  (I  Corin.  xv,  50,  &c.) 
All  this  sounds  literally  like  the  words  of 
the  orthodox  Pharisees.  We  translate  from 
the  codex  of  Maimonides  ( Yad,  Hit.  TG- 


CHRISTIANITY.  369 

shubah  viii,  2.)  "The  future  world  is  one, 
where  there  is  neither  body  nor  corporeal 
attributes ;  the  souls  only  of  the  righteous 
without  any  body  like  the  ministering  an- 
gels are  there.  Because  there  are  no  cor- 
*  poreal  bodies,  there  is  neither  eating,  nor 
drinking,  nor  any  other  earthly  wants. 
No  corporeal  attribute  can  be  ascribed  to 
them,  such  as  sitting,  standing,  sleeping, 
dying,  sorrow,  amusement  or  the  like.  So 
said  the  ancient  sages,  '  In  the  future  world 
there  is  neither  eating,  nor  drinking,  nor 
propagation ;  but  the  righteous  sit,  with 
their  crowns  upon  their  heads,  and  enjoy 
the  glory  of  the  majesty  on  high.'  This 
shows  that  there  is  no  body,  because  there 
is  no  eating  and  no  drinking.  Their  other 
expressions  are  figurative." 

Against  this  view  of  pure  immortality  of 
the  soul,  the  glossaries  protest,  and  Rabad 
says  against  Maimonides :  "  The  words  of 
this  man  sound  to  me  like  denying  alto- 
gether the  resurrection  of  the  body,  only 
the  soul  is  immortal.  But  this  is  not  the 
opinion  of  our  teachers  who  maintain,  the 
righteous  will  rise  in  their  garments,  and 
they  prove  it  from  the  grain  of  wheat."  *  *  * 
"All  this  proves  that  the  righteous  will 
rise  in  their  bodies  alive.  It  is  likely  that 
God  will  change  their  bodies  to  sound  and 
strong  ones,  like  those  of  the  angels  or  that 
of  Elijah." 

The  commentaries  make  all  possible  at- 
tempts to  reconcile  these  two  doctrines 
without  admitting  the  fact  that  both  of 


370  ORIGIN  OP 

them  are  as  old  as  the  tradition,  both  were 
orthodox,  each  had  its  numerous  defend- 
ers. Paul  adopts  the  medium  line  between 
the  two,  as  many  Pharisees  did  before  him. 
The  question,  to  what  purpose  is  all  this? 
if  the  soul  is  happy  without  the  body,  to 
what  purpose  is  the  new  body  ?  is  not  an- 
swered by  Paul  or  the  Pharisees. 

Strange  it  is  that  Paul  advances  the  same 
argument  from  analogy  on  the  resurrection 
as  the  Pharisees  did.  "  The  grain  of  wheat," 
which  JRabad  mentions,  is  the  Talmudic-al 
argument:  "If  the  grain  of  wheat  corrupts 
in  the  earth  and  then  resurrects  in  its 
beautiful  garb,  why  should  not  man  resur- 
rect after  his  corruption."  They  add  to 
this,  "  That  which  was  not,  became,  why 
should  not  that  which  was,  become  again." 
Paul  says  the  same:  "Thou  fool,  that 
which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened,  ex- 
cept it  die.  And  that  which  thou  sowest, 
thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be, 
but  bare  grain  ;  it  may  chance  of  wheat  or 
some  other  grain.  But  God  giveth  it  a 
body  as  it  has  pleased  him,  and  to  every 
seed  his  own  body."  (I  Cor.  xv,  36.) 

Paul  is  an  orthodox  Pharisee  not  merely 
in  his  doctrines  of  God,  resurrection  and 
judgment,  but  also  in  his  construction  of 
the  principle  of  love  in  regard  to  law. 
Love  is  with  him  not  what  it  was  with 
Jesus  and  his  disciples,  the  main  principle 
of  Deity  and  humanity,  the  essence  of  God- 
head and  manhood,  in  opposition  to  the 
GKOSIS  of  the  Gnostics;  with  him  faith 


CHRISTIANITY.  371 

takes  this  high  rank,  salvation  comes  by 
faith,  and  not  by  love  only.  Love  replaces 
the  law  and  is  itself  the  law  of  all  laws. 
Whatever  love  dictates  that  is  law.  "  The 
righteousness  of  God  cometh  by  faith," 
said  Paul.  (Romans  iii,  2.)  "  Owe  no  man 
any  thing  but  to  love  one  another,  for  he 
that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled  the  law." 
(Ibid,  xiii,  8.)  "  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his 
neighbor  :  therefore  love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law."  (Ibid,  xiii,  10.)  He  also  says, 
"And  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love  (charity) 
these  three  ;  but  the  greatest  of  these  is 
love  (charity),"  (I  Corin.  xiii,  13);  but  he 
contradicts  it  in  the  first  verse  of  the  next 
chapter,  where  he  recommends  prophesy- 
ing in  preference  to  love  or  charity,  and  in 
his  own  words  to  the  .Galatians,  "For  in 
Jesus  Christ  neither  circumcision  availeth 
any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith 
which  worketh  by  love  "  (Galat.  v,  6)  which 
he  fully  explains  in  the  words,  "  Your 
work  of  faith,  and  labor  of  love,  and  pa- 
tience of  hope."  (I.  Thess.  i,  3.)  His  fabric 
of  salvation  is  not  based  upon  the  law, 
which  only  fulfills  or  replaces  the  lawr.  It 
is  based  upon  faith,  faith  in  the  doctrines 
which  he  preached  and  hope  for  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  promises  which  he  made.  If 
that  faith  becomes  not  active  by  love,  if 
one  having  faith  and  hope  in  the  fullest 
measure,  exclude  himself  from  society  and 
spend  his  days  in  devotion  or  contempla- 
tion ;  he  must  be  saved,  according  to  the 
doctrines  of  Paul,  without  any  labor  of 


372  ORIGIN  OF 

love.  Love  is  to  him  nothing  more  and 
nothing  less  than  the  highest  principle  of 
the  law  in  man's  conduct  to  his  fellow 
man.  He  claims  not  even  love  to  God,  as 
Moses  did  and  Jesus  repeated ;  he  claims 
for  God  faith  which  toward  the  fellow  man 
works  by  love. 

In  regard  to  the  law,  the  Pharisees  held 
precisely  the  same  doctrine.  "Love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself,"  was  with  them  the 
main  law,  and  the  rest  were  regarded  as 
the  commentary  of  the  former.  We  have 
already  given  some  examples  in  the  sixth 
chapter,  and  add  only  one  more  passage 
from  the  Talmud.  "Rabbi  Simeon  ben 
Eliezer  said,  greater  is  he  who  does  what 
he  does  out  of  love,  than  he  who  does  it  out 
of  fear,  for  the  foi  mer  is  promised  reward 
to  thousands  (of  generations)  and  the  latter 
only  to  the  thousandth  generation."* 

This  doctrine  is  elucidated  at  length 
in  the  Yeru&halmi  (Sotah  v,  7,)  where 
seven  classes  of  Pharisees  are  mentioned, 
the  last  and  most  pious  among  them  are 
the  "  Pharisees  of  love,"  who  are  compared 
to  Abraham,  "  who  transformed  the  evil 
inclinations  to  generous  ones."  Then  the 
Talmud  tells  of  Rabbi  Akiba  that  he  being 
led  to  the  place  of  execution  by  the  serv- 
ants of  Turnus  Rufus,  was  charged  by  him 
to  rise,  but  be  made  no  reply  and  Rufus 
asked,  whether  he  was  deaf  or  crushed 
with  pain,  to  which  Rabbi  Akiba  replied  : 

*Exod.  xx,  6  and  Deuter.  v.  10;  and  Deuter.  vil,  9. 
(Sotuh  31  a.) 


CHRISTIANITY.  373 

"All  my  life  long  I  have  read  the  passage, 
'And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord,  thy  God, 
•with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  might.'  I  have  loved  God 
with  all  my  heart,  I  have  loved  him  with 
all  my  might,  but  whether  I  love  him  with 
all  my  soul,  with  my  life,  I  did  not  know. 
When  thou  spokest  to  me,  I  read  that  pas- 
sage and  thought  of  that  query,  therefore  I 
answered  not."  The  Midrash  Mishli  x,  and 
the  BaUi  add  to  that  a  report  of  the  joy 
which  Rabbi  Akiba  expressed  in  suffering 
martyrdom,  that  he  had  convinced  him- 
self that  he  loved  God  also  with  all  his  s0ul. 
It  makes  not  the  slightest  difference  whether 
the  story  is  literally  true  or  fictitious,  the 
doctrine  illustrated  therein  is  not  changed 
at  all. 

The  Talmud  expresses  the  Pharisean 
principle  of  love  much  better  than  Paul 
does  ;  for  with  Paul  it  is  the  undefined  and 
undefinable  love  per  se,  while  with  the  Tal- 
mud it  is  man's  love  to  God,  which  is  to  be- 
come his  sole  motive  of  action.  Besides 
the  talmudical  presentation  of  the  subject 
is  more  practicable  and  natural  than  Paul's, 
because  it  presumes  that  not  all  good  men 
act  always  from  the  pure  motive  of  love, 
there  are  motives  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
the  sense  of  duty,  the  feeling  of  honor  and 
others,  which  are  by  no  means  low  or  con- 
temptible. According  to  Paul  all  acts 
springing  from  such  and  similar  motives 
are  worthless,  which  they  are  not;  but  ac- 
cording to  the  Talmud,  they  have  their  in- 


374  ORIGIN  OF 

trinsic  merits,  only  that  they  are  inferior 
to  those  springing  from  the  motive  of  love. 
Paul,  in  this  instance,  is  not  explicit 
enough,  although  he  intended  to  give  ex- 
pression to  the  same  Pharisean  doctrine 
which  the  Talmud  elucidates. 

In  the  fundamental  principles  of  religion, 
therefore,  concerning  God,  immortality  and 
the  moral  law,  Paul  was  an  orthodox 
Pharisee.  This  accounts  for  the  change  ol 
tone  among  Christian  writers  after  Paul 
had  become  the  acknowledged  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  Paul  himself  announces  all  these 
Pharisean  doctrines  as  "  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord."  This  is  no  mean  com- 
pliment to  the  Pharisees  whom  the  gospel 
writers  abuse  beyond  measure. 

The  fundamental  doctrines  of  God,  im- 
mortality, and  love  as  the  principal  of  law 
in  the  intercourse  of  individuals  (States 
must  be  governed  by  justice,)  are  sufficient 
to  rational  men,  to  rear  upon  it  the  super- 
structure of  religion  and  morals,  sufficient 
to  a  prosperous  and  happy  life  here  and 
hereafter.  But  this  is  not  the.  case  among 
thoughtless  multitudes  now,  and  it  was 
not  the  case  then.  These  doctrines  are  too 
abstract,  too  sublime  for  minds  engulphed 
in  labor,  lust,  materialism  and  sensuality, 
especially  under  theocratic  or  autocratic 
oppression  and  surrounded  by  inveterate 
corruption.  They  must  have  concrete  and 
tangible  symbols  to  make  an  impression 
on  the  uncultivated  capacity  of  conception, 
and  can  be  led  only  over  many  crooked  by- 


.   CHRISTIANITY.  375 

ways  toward  the  sun  of  truth  which  the 
eager  philosopher  sees  at  once  and  directly* 
through  his  telescope,and  he  sees  it  so  much 
clearer  and  larger  than  those  with  the 
naked  eye  can.  It  is  true,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  philanthropic  reformer  to  remove  the 
rubbish,  to  enlighten  the  conception  and 
level  a  straight  path  ;  the  misfortune, 
however,  is  that  a  few  reformers  stood  very 
high  above  their  respective  ages  in  their 
merits  and  demerits,  and  fewer  still  live 
long  enough  to  do  a  complete  work.  They 
must  take  of  the  world  what  they  can  get, 
and  give  her  what  they  have  and  she  is 
prepared  to  receive.  This  leads  us  to  the 
christology  of  Paul. 

Paul  preached  the  approaching  catas- 
trophe of  the  earth,  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  the  sudden  transformation  of  the 
living,  the  end  of  the  carnal  nature  of 
man,  the  beginning  of  a  purely  spiritual 
kingdom  of  God,  to  take  place  in  his  very 
days  or  shortly  after  it ;  and  he  preached 
this  doctrine  as  the  corner-stone  of  his 
christology.  Holding,  as  he  did,  that  all 
men  are  to  be  judged  on  one  last  judgment 
day,  he  was  obliged  to  admit  that  such  a 
day  must  come,  and  he  only  added  that 
this  last  day  is  coming  now.  Furthermore, 
holding  that  on  that  last  day  of  judgment 
the  righteous  and  the  justified  ones  will 
receive  their  reward  of  life  everlasting  in 
spiritual  bodies,  while  all  sinners,  sin  and 
death  will  disappear  for  ever;  he  was 
obliged  to  preach  also  the  entire  change  of 


376  ORIGIN  OF 

this  physical  nature,  which  is  now  adapted 
to  carnal  bodies,  and  must  be  refitted  to 
correspond  to  spiritual  bodies.  The  resur- 
rection and  ascension  of  Jesus  in  a  spirit- 
ualized body  is  the  beginning  of  the  uni- 
versal resurrection  and  spiritualizatiou  of 
the  body,  to  those  found  worthy.  It  came 
in  advance  to  caution  man  of  the  approach 
of  that  great  and  tremendous  day  which  is 
on  hand,  and  to  secure  the  special  grace  of 
God  to  those  who  believe  and  hope. 

If  one  had  asked  Paul  how  he  knew  all 
that,  he  would  have  replied  that  God  him- 
self told  him  and  revealed  to  him  the  son 
and  all  the  mysteries  connected  with  his 
nature  and  his  fate,  against  which  all  log- 
ical arguments  are  in  vain.  Had  another 
asked  him,  if  man  is  to  be  spiritualized  al- 
gether,  to  what  purpose  is  this  earth,  the 
habitation  of  man,  why  should  it  not  be 
swept  out  of  existence?  and  if  the  earth 
also  must  be  spiritualized  to  correspond 
with  the  new-born  man,  what  will  become 
of  the  animals  and  vegetables  on  earth  ? 
will  they  also  be  spiritualized  to  correspond 
with  earth  and  man  in  that  new  state  or 
will  they  be  swept  away,  being  useless  to 
spiritualized  men,  and  not  made  to  grow 
or  live  in  another  atmosphere  or  on  another 
earth  ?  Paul  would  have  answered,  this  is 
a  mystery  which  I  can  not  explain  to  you, 
who  must  be  guided  by  faith  and  hope.  He 
began  with  a  mystery  addressed  to  faith. 

It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  whether 
Jesus  and  his  disciples  preached  any  such 


CHRISTIANITY.  377 

doctrine.  It  appears  not.  Coternporary 
literature  has  nothing  of  the  kind.  There 
is  one  anecdote  in  the  Talmud  which  sug- 
gests that  the  approaching  destruction  of 
the  temple  was  presaged.  The  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  political  death  of  Judea  must 
have  appeared  evident  to  thinking  men  at 
that  time,  and  this  may  have  given  rise  to 
the  belief  in  the  approaching  end  of  the 
world ;  but  there  is  nothing  certain  about 
it.  The  talmudical  anecdote  is  narrated 
thus :  "  Forty  years  before  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,"  among  other  miraculous 
and  ominous  signs  mentioned  there,  '*  the 
doors  of  the  temple  were  closed  in  the 
evening  and  found  open  (by  themselves) 
in  the  morning.  Rabbi  Johannan  ben 
Saccai  exclaimed :  O !  Temple,why  dost  thou 
terrify  us  !  We  know  already  that  finally 
thou  wilt  be  destroyed,  for  Scriptures  say, 
'  Open,  Lebanon,  thy  doors,  let  the  fire  con- 
sume thy  cedars.'  "  (  Yerushalmi  Yoma 
vi,  3.)  The  year  forty  before  the  fall  of  Je- 
rusalem is  mentioned  frequently  in  the 
Talmud  as  fraught  with  misfortune  to 
Israel,  especially  the  degradation  of  the 
Sanhedrin  and  taking  from  them  the  juris- 
diction in  capital  crimes.  There  may  have 
been  such  a  feeling  or  belief  among  some 
enthusiasts,  and  Paul  made  use  of  it;  but 
it  can  not  be  proved.  It  appears  that  Paul 
is  the  author  of  this  doctrine.* 

*It   has  been  mentioned  before  that  one  party  of 

Pharisees  believed  the  Messiah  and  the  resurrection 

are   to   come   simultaneously.    Paul   preaching  the 

Messiah  who  had  come,  according  to  that  doctrine, 

25 


378  ORIGIN  OP 

Let  us  now  quote  some  passages  from 
Paul's  epistles  in  testimony  of  our  state- 
ments. He  opens  his  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  with  all  possible  blessings  to 
them  for  this  avowed  purpose :  "  So  that  ye 
come  behind  in  no  gift,  (in)  waiting  for  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who  shall 
also  confirm  you  unto  the  end,  that  ye  mo.y 
be  blameless  on  the  day  (of  the  revelation) 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Well,  then, 
the  object  of  all  the  blessings  and  gifts  is, 
to  wait  patiently  for  the  second  advent  of 
the  Messiah,  and  to  be  prepared  for  that 
event,  which  is  to  transpire  in  the  lifetimes 
of  those  whom  he  addresses.  He  admon- 
ishes Titus  (ii,  13)  to  preach  to  his  flock 
strict  laws  of  righteousness,  and  especially 
of  "  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope  and  the 
glorious  appearance  of  the  great  God  and 
our  Savior."  All  the  work  of  conversion 
has  that  one  object,  to  prepare  them  "  for 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says  to  the 
Philippians  (i,  6.)  Again  he  states  (I  Cor. 
xv,  22,)  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  every 
man  in  his  own  order:  Christ  the  first 
fruits ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at 
his  coming.  Then  cometh  the  end,"  <fec. 
In  all  these  cases  he  speaks  of  no  future 
generation  or  distant  day ;  for  he  states  ex- 
pressly (ibid,  x,  11,)  "  Now  all  these  things 
happened  unto  them  (the  Israelites)  for  ex- 
amples ;  and  they  are  written  for  our  ad- 
was  obliged  to  announce  also  the  approach  of  the 
latter  end. 


CHRISTIANITY.  379 

monition.  UPON  WHOM  THE  ENDS  OF  THE 
WORLD  ARE  COME."  The  beginning  of  the 
end,  he  thought,  had  come  already.  Luther 
renders  this  passage,  "  upon  whom  the  last 
age  hath  come,"  which  signifies  the  same. 
He  said  precisely  the  same  thing  to  the 
Ephesians  (i,  5  to  11)  and  to  thePhilippians 
(iii,  20,)  and  when  he  was  old  and  the  sec- 
ond advent  had  not  come,  he  told  his  .faith- 
ful Timothy  that  he  had  kept  the  faith,  sure 
of  receiving  the  crown  of  righteousness, 
he  and  all  "  who  rejoice  in  his  coming 
again,"  as  the  conclusion  of  that  verse  (II 
Tim.  iv,  S)  reads  in  Greek,  instead  of  "  all 
them  also  that  love  his  appearing." 
"  Therefore  judge  nothing  before  the  time, 
UNTIL  THE  LORD  COME,  who  both  will 
bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of  dark- 
ness," &c.  (I  Cor.  iv,  5.)  "  Every  man's 
work  shall  be  made  manifest;  FOR  THE 
DAY  SHALL  DECLARE  IT,  because  it  shall 
be  revealed  by  fire,"  &c.  (Ibid,  iii,  13.) 
Who  can  doubt  that  Paul  taught  the  ead 
is  nigh  and  may  approach  every  moment, 
after  reading  these  words,  "  Behold,  I  show 
you  a  mystery.  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but 
we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  ; 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound  and  the  dead 
shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall 
be  changed,"  (I  Cor.  kv,  51,)  i.  e.  we  who 
will  yet  be  alive  that  day,  we  shall  be 
changed  and  be  made  incorruptible.  We 
will  add  only  one  more  passage  from  many 
of  the  same  nature.  Having  told  the 
25* 


380  OKIGIN  OF 

Thessalonians  (I  Thess.  iv,  16,  17)  how  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  will  come  to  pass, 
he  continues:  "Then  we  who  are  alive 
and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together 
with  them  (the  resurrected  ones)  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air:  and  so 
shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord."  Then  he 
continues  in  the  next  chapter  that  the  pre- 
cise time  is  not  known,  "  For  yourselves 
know  perfectly  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so 
cometh  as  a  thief  in  the  night.  For  when 
they  shall  say,  Peace  and  safety  ;  then  sud- 
den destruction  cometh  upon  them,  as 
travail  upon  a  woman  with  child  ;  and  they 
shall  not  escape."  Then  he  admonishes 
them  to  be  always  prepared  for  the  ap- 
proaching end. 

These  and  a  hundred  similar  passages  in 
the  epistles  can  only  be  misunderstood  by 
the  most  prejudiced  reader,  and  misinter- 
preted by  the  most  perverse  exegese.  The 
unprejudiced  reader  can  see  in  them  only 
the  end  of  the  carnal  world  and  the  last 
day  of  judgment  being  nigh  and  expected 
every  day  and  every  moment. 

Knowing  once  the  key-note  which  Paul 
sounded  in  his  mission  harrangues,  one  can 
easily  account  for  his  sudden  and  brilliant 
successes.  The  end  is  nigh.  This  theme 
fraught  with  all  the  terrors  which  imagina- 
tion can  invent  and  the  most  eloquent  lips 
can  possibly  utter  —  the  unfathomable 
theme  which  comprises  all  the  fury  of  the 
elements  indefinitely  increased  by  the  ex- 
cited fancy  and  the  ignited  passions,  all 


CHRISTIANITY.  381 

which  man  fears  or  dreads,  all  the  terrors 
of  death  and  all  the  horrors  of  destruction 
— this  dread  theme  has  always  been  em- 
ployed with  success,  as  we  have  seen  even 
a  few  years  ago  in  our  enlightened  century 
and  our  free  country.  With  this  awful  and 
fertile  theme,  after  three  years  of  prepara- 
tion in  Arabia,  Paul  appeared  before  Jews 
and  Gentiles  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor  and 
along  the  Mediterranean  coast,  where  the 
Jews  were  most  numerous  and  the  inroads 
of  Judaism  into  heathenism  were  most  con- 
siderable, where  thousands  of  heathens 
loathed  their  shaking  paganism,  and 
turned  with  disgust  from  the  idols,  their 
temples,  altars,  priests  and  degenerated 
mockery.  There  appeared  the  man,  well 
posted  in  the  religious  lore  of  his  days,  and 
announced  himself  as  the  special  messen- 
ger of  the  Most  High,  to  repeat  the  terrible 
message  of  Jonah,  "  In  three  days  Nineveh 
will  be  destroyed,"  only  that  he  enlarges 
the  theme  to  its  widest  compass,  viz:  the 
end  of  all  flesh  is  nigh.  He  comes  pre- 
pared with  all  the  terror-striking  eloquence 
which  the  Bible  offers  in  the  history  of  the 
deluge,  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah, the  awful  threats  of  Moses  and 
the  prophets  to  the  wicked,  and  with  all 
furious  expressions  of  an  ignited  fantasy, 
which  the  Pharisees  produced  in  the  de- 
scription of  all  the  horrors  to  precede  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah  rviyrD  ^SH,  with  all 
the  poetical  glow  surrounding  the  catas- 
trophe of  all  catastrophiesD13n*Jl  hlff  H-TID. 


382  ORIGIN  OF 

So  he  comes  and  thunders  into  the  supersti- 
tious masses,  full  of  skepticism  against  the 
old  and  with  dim  perceptions  of  a  new  relig- 
ion to  be  embraced— so  he  comes  and  thun- 
ders into  those  masses,  the  end  of  all  flesh  is 
nigh,  God  has  sent  me  to  announce  it  and 
to  prepare  you  either  for  death,  death  to  all 
in  one  moment,  or  for  eternal  happiness. 
How  thousands  of  those  persons  must 
have  trembled  and  been  prostrated  at  the 
feetef  the  horrid  harbinger,  although  other 
tens  of  thousands  may  have  sneered  at  his 
superstition  !  And  having  once  crushed 
them  with  the  first  part  of  his  message,  he 
certainly  held  a  terrible  reckoning  with 
them,  their  imaginary  gods,  their  impotent 
idols,  their  demoralized  and  hypocritical 
priests,  their  own  degeneration,  their  sins, 
crimes,  shame  and  self-pollution.  Speci- 
mens thereof  are  still  extant  (Romans  i, 
18,  and  Ephes.  iv,  17,)  in  which  he  charges 
the  heathens  with  all  the  following  crimes  : 

"  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they 
became  fools ;  and  changed  the  glory  of  the 
uncorruptible  God  into  an  image  made  like 
to  corruptible  man,  and  to  birds,  and  four- 
foot  ed  beasts,  and  creeping  things.  Where- 
fore God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness, 
through  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  to 
dishonor  their  own  bodies  between  them- 
selves ;  who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into 
a  lie,  and  worshiped  and  served  the  crea- 
ture more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed 
forever.  Amen.  For  this  cause  God  gave 
them  up  unto  vile  affections.  For  even 
their  women  did  change  the  natural  use 
into  that  which  is  against  nature  :  and  like- 
wise also  the  men, "leaving  the  natural  use 


CHRISTIANITY.  383 

of  the  woman,  turned  in  their  lust  one  to- 
ward another;  men  with  men  working 
that  which  is  unseemly,  and  receiving  in 
themselves  that  recompense  ot  their  error 
which  was  meet.  And  even  as  they  did 
not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge, 
God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind, 
to  do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient: 
Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  for- 
nication, wickedness,  covetousness,  mali- 
ciousness; full  of  envy,  murder,  debate, 
deceit,  malignity;  whisperers,  backbiters, 
haters  of  God,  despiteful,  proud,  boasters, 
inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to 
parents.  Without  understanding,  cove- 
nant-breakers, without  natural  affection, 
implacable,  unmerciful :  who,  knowing  the 
judgment  of  God,  that  they  which  commit 
such  things  are  worthy  of  death  ;  not  only 
do  these,  but  have  pleasure  in  them 
that  do  them." 

Being  thus  crushed  with  fear  and  terror, 
being  prostrated  with  awe  and  horror,  and 
hearing  this  overpowering  flood  of  denun- 
ciations justly  striking  their  guilty  heads, 
coming  with  cataract  force  from  the  high 
rock,  from  the  man  who  alleges  to  speak  in 
the  name  of  the  Almighty,  and  falling  upon 
sick  and  sore  hearts :  the  effect  must  have 
been  indescribable,  however  the  skeptics 
smiled ;  those  who  believed  must  have 
been  completely  reduced  to  the  condition  of 
credulous  and  awe-stricken  children. 

Now  comes  in  Paul's  Gospel.  Here  is 
your  choice.  There  is  death  and  destruc- 
tion ;  here  is  life  and  happiness  everlasting. 
God  has  sent  his  Son,  he  said  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, a  name  so  familiar  to  pagan  ears ;  not 
the  son  of  Chronos,  Jupiter,  Apollo  or 


384  ORIGIN  OF 

Bacchus,  in  whom  you  believe  no  longer, 
the  Son  of  the  one,  eternal  and  almighty 
God.  God  has  sent  the  Messiah,  he  said  to 
Jews,  the  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  is 
yours  according  to  the  flesh,  and  God's  ac- 
cording to  the  spirit.  This  was  well  con- 
sidered, to  hit  the  conception  of  both,  and 
secure  their  attention  and  appreciation. 
The  Messiah-son  was  sent  by  the  Father 
before  the  end  of  all  flesh  comes,  to  reveal 
the  near  approach  of  that  end,  and  the 
grace  of  the  Father  to  those  who  will  em- 
brace it,  to  live  forever.  Your  sins,  it  is 
true,  are  numerous  and  grievous,  but  the 
son  died  for  them,  and  his  blood  wipes 
them  out.  With  Adam,  the  first  father  of 
the  race,  came  the  flesh,  sin  and  death,  with 
Jesus,  the  father  of  a  spiritual  humanitj7, 
comes  purity  and  life  eternal.  All  you 
need  do,  is  to  have  faith  in  him,  to  con- 
sider your  flesh  crucified  and  dead  with 
him,  and  you  will  resurrect  with  him  who 
will  save  you  from  death  and  the  terrors  of 
destruction,  change  your  corruptible  bodies 
into  immortal  ones  at  the  twinkling  of  an 
eye;  and  if  any  of  you  die  before  that 
event,  he  will  raise  you  from  the  grave 
and  cover  you  with  immortal  bodies.  Not 
only  you,  but  also  the  deceased  relatives  of 
those  who  embrace  the  gospel  shall  be 
saved  ~by  your  faith.  (I  Corin.  v,  29.)  As 
long  as  you  live,  before  the  end  of  all  flesh 
comes,  the  son  will  plead  your  cause  before 
the  Father  ;  or  rather  the  son  who  has  been 
given  all  power  to  conduct  this  catastrophe, 


CHRISTIANITY.  385 

justif3T  all  who  have  faith  in  him.  On 
the  day  of  destruction  he  will  watch  over 
you,  and  the  Father  will  judge  you  through 
him  who  will  certainly  justify  you.  At 
the  end  of  this  cycle  of  existence,  sin  and 
death  together  with  the  body  of  flesh  which 
is  the  source  of  sin,  shall  be  destroyed  for- 
ever, the  regenerated  men  shall  live  forever 
in  spiritual  bodies  and  eternal  innocence, 
behold  the  Almighty  himself,  be  in  unin- 
terrupted company  with  the  son  who,  after 
having  completed  the  catastrophe  and  re- 
generated the  race,  will  return  the  power 
and  the  kingdom  to  him  who  gave  it, 
and  God  will  be  again  all  in  all. 

The  reader  can  easily  imagine  how  ea- 
gerly those  longed  after  Paul's  gospel,  who 
trembled  at  the  approach  of  the  end  of  all 
flesh,  and  felt  keenly  their  wickedness, 
their  crimes,  their  follies  and  their  just 
apprehensions.  That  they  did  not  worship 
Paul  for  these  glad  tidings  is  wonderful 
indeed,  and  it  was  only  because  the  wor- 
ship of  man  was  entirely  averse  to  his 
doctrines.  That  not  tens  of  thousands 
knelt- spell-bound  before  his  altar,  can  only 
be  accounted  for  by  the  dominion  of  the 
most  loathsome  demoralization,  of  skepti- 
cism and  epicurism  in  its  worst  form, 
among  the  heathens;  by  the  national  ra- 
tionality of  the  Jews  who  would  not  so 
easily  believe  in  the  approach  of  the  end  of 
all  flesh ;  and  by  the  deficiencies  of  Paul 
as  an  orator,  as  he  repeatedly  states  in  his 
epistles.  His  Greek  was  probably  too 


386  ORIGIN  OF 

much  Syriac,  and  Latin,  it  appears,  he  did 
not  speak.  But  his  plan  to  preach  the 
gospel  was  in  every  respect  powerful 
enough  to  convert  millions. 

But  after  his  hearers  had  declared  their 
consent  to  embrace  his  gospel,  then  the 
question  rose,  what  must  we  do  now,  till 
the  day  of  redemption  comes  ?  How  must 
we  live  to  be  regenerated  in  Christ  ?  To 
this,  Paul's  answer  was  very  simple.  You 
are  baptized  upon  the  son,  i.  e.  you  are 
dedicated  to  his  service  by  this  symbol; 
then  I  lay  rny  hand  upon  you,  and  you  will 
be  changed,  you  will  be  other  men  and 
women,  you  will  receive  the  Holy  Ghost, 
i.  e.  your  own  conscience  and  consciousness 
will  be  new,  born  again,  your  energies  will 
be  hightened  by  this  new  impulse,  you  will 
receive  the  various  gifts  of  grace,  you  will 
eloquently  prophesy,  and  as  long  as  you 
preserve  faith,  hope  and  love,  faith  in  the 
son,  hope  in  his  speedy  return,  and  love  to 
mankind,  you  will  be  saint  .  Yonr  flesh 
with  all  its  lusts,  passions  and  propensities 
is  dead  with  the  body  of  Jesus  and  with 
your  former  sins ;  let  the  spirit  reign;  and 
you  are  regenerated  in  Christ.  All  this 
was  so  easy  and  so  natural,  although  it  was 
mystified  in  afterlimes  that  it  must  have 
delighted  those  Gentiles  who  saw  them- 
selves all  at  once  redeemed  of  the  terror 
they  felt,  of  the  crushing  weight  of  their 
sins,  doubts  and  apprehensions,  and 
changed  into  persons  of  pure  conscience, 


CHRISTIANITY.  387 

charged  with  a  higher  mission,  and  in- 
spired with  the  loftiest  hopes. 

They  were  indeed  regenerated  after  Paul 
had  laid  his  hands  upon  them.  Not  only 
their  conscience,  consciousness,  turn  of 
mind,  ideals  of  the  soul,  desires,  hopes  and 
wishes  were  changed  ;  but  Paul  gave  them 
the  Bible  as  the  book  of  books,  the  word  of 
life  and  inspiration,  the  oracles  of  God. 
In  all  his  arguments  he  pointed  to  Moses 
and  Isaiah,  to  the  Patriarchs  and  the 
Prophets,  to  the  Psalms  and  the  Proverbs, 
as  the  living  word  of  the  eternal  God.  This 
must  have  regenerated  those  who  had  been 
cured  of  their  wickedness  by  the  threats  of 
the  approaching  end  and  God's  wrath 
against  the  sinner.  The  Holy  Ghost  of 
Paul  has  nothing  common  with  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Bath  Jfol,  the  Holy  Ghost  of 
Peter. 

It  is  clearly  the  regenerated  conscience 
and  consciousness  of  man,  which  highten 
his  energies  and  elevate  his  feelings.  His 
son  or  Messiah  is  not  the  indefinite  cruci- 
fied savior  of  Peter,  the  sacrificed  king,  the 
weak  and  vanquished  son  of  David ;  his 
Son  of  God  is  a  mere  instrument  in  the 
hand  of  Providence,  whom  the  Father  has 
sent  on  earth,  to  do  a  certain  work,  and 
who  is  now  commissioned  as  Metathron, 
(the  co-regent,)  or  as  Synadelphon,  (the  co- 
brother,) — both  signifying  one  who  par- 
takes in  the  government — to  carry  out  the 
work  which  is  to  be  done  now,  and  then  be 
again  a  soul  or  angel  in  heaven,  as  God  will 


388  ORIGIN  OF 

be  again  all  in  all.  'There  is  not  the  slight- 
est similarity  in  Paul's  Jesus  with  that  of 
Peter,  John,  or  much  less  with  that  of 
Trinitarian  Christians.  Behind  the  Jesus 
of  Paul,  there  is  God  in  all  His  majesty 
and  glory,  and  Jesus  is  only  appointed  for 
a  short  time  to  a  specific  purpose,  as  mystic 
Pharisees  considered  angels  to  be  appointed 
in  the  same  manner,  for  a  specific  time  and 
purpose.  Through  the  popular  word,  "  Son 
of  God,"  he  pointed  the  heathen  mind  to 
the  eternal  Father,  whom  they  could  not 
comprehend  without  some  concrete  and 
tangible  aid.  The  son  was  only  a  messen- 
ger just  now  girded  with  power;  but  the 
Father  is  all  in  all.  Precisely  in  the  same 
manner  he  must  have  explained  the  Mes- 
sianic speculations  of  the  Jews,  as  we  shall 
see  hereafter.  But  he  cared  not  for  the  son 
or  the  throne  of  David,  and  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it ;  nor  did  he  adopt  any  thing 
from  the  older  apostles,  except  the  idea  of 
resurrection  and  redemption. 

We  must  remark  here  in  advance  that  it 
appears  to  us  Paul  made  use  of  all  these 
means,  the  end  ot  all  flesh,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  other  novelties,  not  because  he  be- 
lieved in  them  ;  but  because  he  considered 
them  the  most  effectual  means,  to  rouse  the 
dormant  and  benumbed  mind  of  the 
heathens  to  the  true  conceptions  ot  God, 
immortality,  man's  responsibility  to  Gcd, 
and  the  right  appreciation  of  moral  laws 
and  a  moral  life.  He  could  only  suppose 
that  minds  once  reclaimed  from,  the  dark- 


CHRISTIANITY.  389 

ness  of  paganism,  and  once  enlightened 
with  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  will  not  and 
can  not  fall  back  into  heathenism,  for  they 
can  not  divest  themselves  of  what  they 
know — even  if,  in  the  course  of  time,  they 
will  find  out  that  the  end  of  all  flesh  is  not 
coming,  hence  the  appointment  of  the  sou 
for  that  specific  time  and  purpose  can  not 
be  true.  He  could  not  possibly  suppose 
that  theologians  will  pervert  his  words  to 
the  extent  it  has  been  done,  and  make 
realities  of  his  symbols,  essentials  of  his 
means,  a  new  heathenism  of  his  opposition 
to  it.  Paul  appears  to  us  a  man  inspired 
with  the  intense  desire  to  convert  the 
heathen  and  reform  the  Jew,  to  which  end 
he  used  any  means  at  his  command.  He 
says  of  himself  (I  Corin.  ix,  19) : 

"  For  though  I  be  free  from  all  men,  yet 
have  I  made  myself  servant  unto  all,  that 
I  might  gain  the  more.  And  unto  the  Jews 
I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the 
Jews  ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as 
under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that 
are  under  the  law  ;  to  them  that  are  with- 
out law,  as  without  law,  (being  not  with- 
out law  to  God,  but  under  the  law  to  Christ,) 
that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  without 
law.  To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that 
I  might  gain  the  weak:  I  am  made  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  means 
save  some." 

Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  was  a  reform  upon 
the  Metathron  of  the  mystic  Pharisees. 
For  the  Metathron  was  with  them  the  Saar 
shel  Olam,  "  the  prince  of  the  world,"  for 
all  times  ;  while  Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  oc- 
cupied this  position  only  for  a  very  short 


390  ORIGIN  OF 

time  to  the  end  of  all  flesh,  which  he  an- 
nounced as  being  on  hand.  He  could  not 
imagine  that  those  who  will  see  the  end 
was  not  coming,  should  not  drop  the  means 
he  used  to  convert  the  heathens,  the  end, 
and  the  instrument  of  God  to  that  end ; 
and  cling  to  the  pure  and  unadulterated 
word  of  God,  as  human  reason  undey- 
stands  it. 

Paul  did  not  address  his  gospel  to  the 
understanding,  he  addressed  it  to  faith. 
He  could  not  expect  from  sound  judgment 
to  acquiesce  in  his  pretensions  and  predic- 
tions. How  could  they  know  that  Paul 
was  a  messenger  of  the  Most  High  ?  They 
merely  believed  it  through  faith.  What 
evidence  had  they  that  Jesus  resurrected 
as  the  first  fruit  of  resurrection,  that  the 
latter  end,  the  universal  resurrection,  the 
day  of  judgment  and  the  change  of  exist- 
ence were  nigh,  and  that  they  could  be 
saved  by  the  method  of  Paul  ?  not  the  least 
in  the  world  besides  their  faith.  Paul  said 
so,  and  he  attempted  to  prove  that,  which 
did  not  come  to  pass  after  all,  from  Bible 
passages,  in  his  own  and  peculiar  way  of 
rabbinical  wit,  mystic  exegese,  and  the 
separation  of  passages  from  the  context, 
methods  which,  unfortunate  to  truth,  have 
become  common  among  Christian  writers. 
If  one  had  asked  him,  how  is  it  possible 
that  the  Almighty  remain  the  Almighty, 
if  he  yield  for  a  time,  a  year,  a  day,  a  mo- 
ment or  an  eternity,  all  power,  or  a  portion 
thereof  to  any  other  being  ?  and  if  one 


CHRISTIANITY.  391 

would  have  added,  can  you  think  for  one 
moment  of  God  without  thinking  sinjul- 
taneously  of  His  being  the  Almighty  ? 
Paul  would  have  simply  answered,  so  it  is 
written  in  Holy  Scriptures  :  "  Every  thing 
hast  thou  placed  beneath  his  feet,"  (Psalm 
viii,  7)  and  "  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand, 
until  I  place  thy  enemies  as  a  stool  for  thy 
feet,"  (Psalm  ex,  1);  therefore  God  has 
given  all  power  to  the  Son  to  conduct  this 
catastrophe.  If  one  would  have  continued 
to  oppose  him  and  have  said,  because  the 
Almighty  can  not  dispose  of  his  power, 
or  rather  of  himself,  and  remain  the  Al- 
mighty, therefore  those  Scriptural  passages 
can  not  relate  to  any  such  thing  ;  Ps.  8  refers 
to  man  in  general,  as  the  term  yus  Enosh, 
"  the  perishable  mortal,"  in  verse  5  clearly 
shows,  and  Psalm  ex  was  addressed  by  a 
poet  to  King  David  when  in  Mabanaim 
during  the  Absalom  rebellion,  and  the 
words  quoted  refer  to  David  personally — 
then  Paul  would  have  said,  this  is  the  exe- 
gese  of  reason,  the  objection  of  the  under- 
standing; but  I  am  not  sent  to  baptize  and 
preach  the  gospel  "  with  the  wisdom  of 
words."  *  *  *  "  For  the  preaching  of  the 
cross  is  to  them  that  perish  foolishness  ; 
but  unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is  the 
power  of  God.  For  it  is  written,  I  will  de- 
stroy the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  will 
bring  to  nothing  the  understanding  of  the 
prudent."  *  *  *  "  It  pleased  God  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that 
believe."  *  *  *  "  God  hath  chosen  the 


392  ORIGIN  OF 

foolish  things  of  the  world  to  confound  the 
wise."  (I  Corinthians  i,  17—27.)  This 
closed  every  argument  for  those  who  be- 
lieved, and  also  for  those  who  doubted,  for 
reason  can  not  overcome  faith  with  the 
credulous.  He  cut  off  all  debates  by  the 
very  premise,  I  am  sent  to  those  who  have 
faith,  not  to  those  who  reason. 

Paul  had  an  excellent  ground  to  his 
claim  of  superiority  for  faith,  especially 
with  those  who  were  convinced  of  their 
gross  and  stupendous  wickedness.  Here 
is  your  wisdom,  all  the  philosophy  of  your 
savans,  and  all  the  sagacity  of  your  states- 
men and  legislators,  he  could  tell  them  ; 
but  "  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God," 
was  not  protected  against  degeneration  and 
corruption,  oppression  and  slavery,  wick- 
edness and  crime.  "When  they  knew  God, 
they  glorified  him  not  as  God,  neither  were 
they  thankful ;  but  became  vain  in  their 
imagination,  and  their  foolish  heart  was 
darkened.  Professing  themselves  to  be 
wise,  they  became  fools."  *  *  *  "Where- 
fore God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanli- 
ness  through  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts," 
&c.  (Romans  i,  21.)  Your  wisdom  led  you 
to  destruction,  your  knowledge  is  a  crime, 
all  your  philosophy  is  impotent  to  protect 
you  against  the  wrath  of  the  Most  High 
and  the  fury  of  the  last  day,  he  could  say 
and  did  say  to  them,  and  those  who  be- 
lieved, who  admitted  his  premises,  could 
only  feel  convinced  of  the  superiority  of 
faith  to  the  understanding.  In  all  this,  of 


CHRISTIANITY.  393 

course,  two  premises  must  be  admitted,  the 
end  of  all  flesh  to  be  nigh,  a*hd  Paul's  being 
the  actual  messenger  of  the  Most  High  to 
preach  the  gospel  of  salvation. 

The  next  question,  however,  was  this, 
Paul  attempted  to  prove  all  his  claims  and 
allegations  from  the  Bible,  why  did  the 
Jews  not  know  these  things,  the  very  people 
who  had  the  Bible  for  centuries,  who  lived 
and  died  with  and  for  those  precepts  ?  To 
this  Paul  answered,  the  end  of  all  flesh  and 
the  fabric  of  salvation  were  a  mystery 
made  known  through  the  death  of  Jesus 
and  the  revelations  to  Paul.  It  was  in  the 
plan  of  God  that  this  mystery  should  be 
made  known  just  now,  and  in  time  to  cau- 
tion the  people  of  the  approaching  end,  of 
the  wrath  of  God  to  sinners,  and  of  his 
grace  to  the  believers.  The  prophets  pre- 
dicted it,  but  they  knew  it  not,  they  did 
not  understand  it.  Now  it  has  been  made 
manifest  not  to  the  understanding,  but  to 
faith,  and  the  faithful  will  hope. 

If  they  next  would  ask  him,  if  a  mystery 
it  is,  how  shall  we  know  it  is  true?  he 
would  have  answered,  you  will  know  this 
by  your  faith,  whereas  the  understanding 
of  the  heathen  is  madness,  and  his  knowl- 
edge is  a  crime,  in  consequence  of  the  curse 
of  God  which  rests  upon  them. 

But  why  do  the  Jews  not  believe  it,  they 
are  under  no  curse,  for  theirs  are  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  the  covenant  and  the  an- 
cestors ?  To  this  Paul  replied,  all  are  un- 
der the  curse  of  sin,  the  circumcised  and 
26 


-• 


394  ORIGIN  OF 

the  uncircumcised ;  the  law  itself  is  a  curse, 
and  was  given  to  become  a  curse,  so  that 
when  all  were  under  the  curse  of  sin,  God 
was  enabled  to  reveal  fully  his  grace  and 
his  saving  power.  It  is  a  peculiar  idea  that 
God  placed  a  stumbling  block  in  the  way 
of  the  blind,  that  he  stumble,  in  order  to 
afford  an  opportunity  to  God  to  lift  him  up, 
and  thus  to  convince  him  of  the  divine 
goodness.  It  is  somewhat  like  that  chari- 
table man,  who,  being  very  desirous  to  feed 
the  hungry,  captured  and  imprisoned  a 
number  of  men,  starved  them  for  three 
days,  and  set  before  them  a  royal  meal  on 
the  fourth  day,  which  satisfied  his  chari- 
table disposition.  Mankind  were  under 
the  curse  of  sin  for  four  thousand  years, 
miserable  wretches,  to  the  one  and  sole 
purpose,  that  God  could  redeem  them  and 
show  his  grace,  as  if  the  redemption  was 
more  gracious  than  the  perpetual  care  of 
Providence  to  render  it  unnecessary ;  as  if 
it  was  nobler  to  redeem  a  captive  than  to 
prevent  his  capture ;  or  as  if  God  had  found 
pleasure  in  trampling  the  human  race  into 
the  quackmire  of  sin,  wretchedness,  crime 
and  misery,  because  he  was  vain  enough  to 
thirst  after  an  opportunity  to  reveal  his  full 
grace.  But  to  all  these  objections  Paul 
gave  one  answer,  it  is  a  mystery,  one,  in- 
deed, which  I  myself  do  not  understand: 
"  Brethren,  I  count  not  myself  to  have  ap- 
prehended ;  but  this  one  thing  I  do,  for- 
getting those  things  which  are  behind  and 
reaching  forth  unto  those  things  which  are 


CHRISTIAN  IT  Y.  395 

before, "(Philippians  iii,  13,)  that  is  I  reason 
not  over  things  past,  I  hope  in  the  grace  to 
come;  I  comprehend  not  the  mysteries,  but 
I  believe  in  the  things  of  the  future. 

If  all  men  are  under  the  curse  of  sin,  the 
next  question  must  have  been,  where  is  the 
human  will  and  understanding  ?  To  this 
Paul  replies,  we  have  the  understanding  to 
know  that  which  is  good  and  to  distinguish 
it  from  that  which  is  evil,  but  we  have  not 
the  will  to  perform  that  which  is  good. 
Man  has  no  free  will.  He  exemplifies  on 
himself  Jthe  rabbinical  discussion  onjnn  -is> 
and  man  -\y>  Yetser  harah  and  Yetser  Jiatob, 
"  the  good  inclinations  and  the  evil  ones," 
in  the  following  words  (Romans  vii,  1-2,  &c.): 

"Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  com- 
mandment holy,  and  just,  and  good.  Was 
then  that  which  is  good  made  death  unto 
me?  God  forbid.  But  sin,  that  it  might 
appear  sin,  working  death  in  me  by  that 
which  is  good;  that  sin  by  the  command- 
ment might  become  exceeding  sinful.  For 
we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual :  but  I 
am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  For  that  which 
I  do.  I  allow  not:  for  what  I  would,  that 
do  I  not;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I.  If 
then  I  do  that  which  1  would  not,  I  consent 
unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  Now  then  it 
is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwell- 
eth  in  me.  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is, 
in  my  flesh,)  dwelleth  no  good  thing:  for 
to  will  is  present  with  me ;  but  how  to  per- 
form that  which  is  good,  I  find  not.  For 
the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not  ;  but  the 
evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  Now  if 
I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that 
do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  I  find 
then  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil 
is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight  in  the 
26* 


396  ORIGIN  OF 

law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man:  but  I 
see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing 
me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is 
in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I 
am !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this,  death  ?  I  thank  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  So  then,  with  the  mind  I 
myself  serve  the  law  of  God  ;  but  with  the 
flesh  the  law  of  sin." 

So  the  law  is  good  and  just,  but  Paul  and 
everybody  else  is  a  disobedient  and  rebel- 
lious rogue.  It  must  have  been  quite  pleas- 
ing and  soothing  to  the  incestuous  and  de- 
graded heathens,  to  learn  that  actually  all 
men  are  rogues  and  scoundrels,  not  by  their 
own  choice,  indeed,  but  by  the  will  of  God 
who  has  not  given  them  the  capacity  to 
perform  that  which  is  good,  so  that  every 
one  has  a  devil  in  his  flesh  who  plays  dia- 
bolical tricks  with  a  poor  man.  This  was 
a  capital  hit  of  Paul,  to  win  the  heathens 
who  felt  the  burden  of  their  wickedness. 
You  are  as  good  or  rather  as  bad  as  the  rest 
of  them,  he  preached  to  them,  and  rogues 
always  love  to  have  company.  If  you  have 
sinned  a  little  more,  it  was  only  done  by 
God's  will,  that  He  have  more  opportunity 
to  show  his  mercy  and  his  grace.  The  rab- 
bis maintained,  the  Messiah  would  come 
when  either  all  men  were  righteous  'y  "?a 
or  when  all. were  wicked  3>n  /k?:j,  which  ne- 
gates not  the  free  will ;  Paul  adopted  the 
latter,  and  negated  the  free  will. 

But  if  every  man  has  a  devil  in  his  flesh 
and  can  not  escape  the  dominion  of  sin, 
how  coul&God  justly  reward  the  righteous 


CHRISTIANITY.  397 

or  punish  the  wicked?  This  is  the  very 
next  question,  and  to  this  Paul  answers, 
there  is  no  such  a  thing  as  righteousness, 
man  has  not  the  competency  to  perform 
that  which  is  good.  He  may  by  obedience 
to  the  law  or  by  natural  impulse  do  that 
which  the  law  ordains;  but  that  is  not  right- 
eousness, it  is  obedience  to  the  law  which 
is  itself  a  curse.  "  I  had  not  known  sin 
but  by  the  law."  *  *  *  "Without  the 
law  sin  was  dead.  For  I  was  alive  without 
the  law  once:  but  when  the  commandment 
came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died.  And  the 
commandment  which  was  ordained  to  life, 
I  found  to  be  unto  death."  (Romans  vii, 
7,  &c.)  So  to  obey  the  law,  even  from  the 
best  motives,  is  not  righteousness,  because 
the  commandments  of  God  are  not  good 
per  se.  Righteousness  is  in  faith  only,  says 
Paul,  and  faith  is  to  believe  in  the  resurrec- 
tion and  office  of  Jesus  and  the  approach 
of  the  end  of  all  flesh  with  the  resurrection 
and  day  of  judgment.  Before  Jesus  was 
born  and  crucified,  faith  could  not  exist,  as 
the  mystery  was  not  revealed,  except  to 
Abraham ;  hence  there  was  no  righteous- 
ness. Without  righteousness,  however, 
there  is  no  wickedness,  no  reward  and  no 
punishment.  Sin  and  death  came  with 
Adam  and  the  flesh,  and  the  human  being 
in  that  flesh  wras  neither  good,  nor  bad,  nor 
indifferent,  nor  any  thing  else  ;  he  could  no 
more  be  rewarded  or  punished  than  the 
tiger  or  the  lion.*  This  is  the  grave  of 

'Precisely   as  the  Talmud  says  \>f  the  doctrine  of 
Acher,  who  denied  reward  and  punishment  pjyn  n3B> 


398  ORIGIN  OP 

Paul's  arguments.  God  had  the  cruel  whim 
to  create  man  with  a  body  of  flesh,  to  let 
him  run  4,000  years  through  sin,  misery 
and  sorrow  to  death,  in  order  to  show  his 
grace  to  a  haudfull  of  heathens  who 
chanced  to  believe  a  certain  story  from  fear 
of  the  terrors  accompanying  the  destruction 
of  all  flesh.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  how- 
ever, that  Paul's  arguments  were  produced 
post  festum,  not  to  convert  the  heathens, 
but  to  defend  himself  against  the  attacks 
of  his  colleagues  from  Jerusalem,  long  after 
he  had  founded  the  Christian  congregations, 
to  whom  his  epistles  were  addressed.  Ori- 
ginally he  preached  the  end  of  all  flesh 
a-coming,  the  sinfulness  of  the  heathens, 
the  gospel  and  salvation  through  faith. 

He  could  not  command  the  heathens  to 
study  and  to  practice  the  law  of  Moses 
from  the  following  reasons : 

1.  The  law  was  most  objectionable  to  the 
Gentiles  under  the  Roman  scepter  ou  ac- 
count of  the  tenacity  with  which  the  He- 
brews of  Palestine  clung  to  it,  so  that  it 
became  the  main  cause  of  rebellion  against 
Roman  usurpation,  and  of  Rome's  violent 
hatred  against  the  people  of  Judea,  The 
sect  of  zealots  established  by  Judas  of 
Galileo,  when  Judea  was  made  a  Roman 
province,  after  the  banishment  of  Arche- 
laus,  considered  the  maintenance  of  the 
national  laws  paramount  to  all  other  duties. 
This  doctrine  was  common  in  Judea.  It 
displeased  the  Romans  to  such  a  degree  that 
Josephus  tells  us  of  this  sect :  "All  sorts  of 


CHRISTIANITY.  399 

misfortune  also  sprang  from  these  men, 
and  the  nation  was  infected  with  this  doc- 
trine to  an  incredible  degree  ;  one  violent 
war  came  upon  us  after  another,  and  we 
lost  our  friends  which  used  to  alleviate  our 
pains."  The  attentive  reader  can  not  fail 
to  see  in  this  statement  of  Josephus  how 
violently  the  Romans  hated  the  Jewish  law, 
the  cause  of  that  determined  resistance  to 
Rome's  power.  This  hatred  found  its  final 
expression  in  the  edicts  of  Hadrian,  to  burn 
all  copies  of  the  law,  and  to  kill  every  one 
who  observes  it,  teaches  it,  or  qualifies 
judges  or  teachers  thereof.  The  identity  of 
the  Jewish  religion  with  the  law  was  the 
cause  of  the  failure  in  the  conversion  of 
heathens,  although  the  Pharisees  traveled 
over  land  and  sea  to  gain  a  proselyte,  kings 
and  queens  had  embraced  it,  like  Munabaz 
and  Helene,  and  Judaism  had  made  con- 
siderable progress  among. devout  Gentiles 
whom  also  the  author  of  "The  Acts  "  men- 
tions. The  law  was  in  the.  way  of  its  pro- 
gress and  final  triumph  over  heathenism  in 
the  Roman  empire,  and  the  Pharisees  would 
not  yield  an  iota  of  the  law,  notwithstand- 
ing the  better  advice  of  Hillel. 

Paul  was  sagacious  enough  to  compre- 
hend the  situation,  and  prudent  enough 
to  recognize  the  advantages.  With  the 
death  of  Jesus,  he  proclaimed  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, the  law  and  the  covenant  of  Israel 
are  abrogated,  so  long  and  no  longer,  they 
were  intended  by  the  Almighty,  to  educate 


400  ORIGIN  OP 

and  prepare  us  for  this  last  age  of  all  flesh. 

So  one  obstacle  was  out  of  his  way. 

The  Hebrews  too  who  lived  outside  of 
Palestine  could  naturally  not  feel  that  at- 
tachment to  the  civil  and  criminal  laws  of 
Israel,  as  those  in  Palestine  did.  Born  and 
grown  up  under  the  laws  of  Rome,  they 
may  have  preferred  them  to  those  of  Pales- 
tine. The  corruption  among  high  priests 
and  priests  in  Jerusalem,  the  decline  of  the 
authority  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the  incessant 
disputes  of  the  rabbis,  especially  the  Hil- 
lelites  and  the  Shammaites,  about  the 
minutia3  of  the  law,  must  have  consider- 
ably weakened  the  influence  and  authority 
of  the  law  among  the  foreign  Jews.  They 
were  commanded  to  travel  three  times  a 
year  to  the  distant  Jerusalem  and  bring 
there  their  sacrifices  and  free  will  offerings, 
both  of  which  was  impossible  to  the  poor. 
They  could  not  celebrate  the  biblical  holy 
days  without  advice  from  Jerusalem,  and 
were  tied  to  the  Jewish  capital  for  the  exer- 
cise of  their  religion.  It  could  not  have 
been  unknown  to  them  that  the  Pharisees 
taught,  the  Hebrews  outside  of  Palestine 
were  not  commanded  to  observe  any  of  the 
laws  not  contained  or  implied  in  the  Deca- 
logue, as  Moses  expressly  states  in  Deuter- 
onomy (iv,  13,  14);  and  they  were  advised 
to  observe  those  commandments  only  to 
the  one  purpose,  "  That  they  appear  not 
new  to  you  when  you  return  "  to  Palestine.f 

t  Rashi  to   Deuteronomy   xi.   18,   quotes   from  th 
Siphri  the  following    interesting  passage: 


CHRISTIANITY.  401 

Consequently  there  could  have  been  no 
particular  danger  to  Paul  in  speaking  to 
Jews  outside  of  Palestine  of  the  abrogation 
of  the  law,  in  a  limited  sense  of  course, 
and  it  was  only  in  a  limited  sense  that  Paul 
did  intend  it,  as  he  wrote  frequently,  al- 
though he  was  obliged  to  express  it  before 
Romans  as  a  broad  generality. 

The  Pharisees  themselves  went  very  far 
in  this  respect.  They  decided  that  women 
are  not  commanded  to  observe  such  laws 
which  are  bound  to  a  certain  timej  from 
obvious  reasons.  In  regard  to  Hebrews 
not  residing  in  Palestine,  they  made  a  dis- 
tinction between  commandments  concern- 
ing the  person,  and  commandments  con- 
cerning the  soil,  and  declared  that  the 
former  only  are  obligatory  to  Israelites  out- 
side of  Palestine,  which  is  equal  to  an  ab- 
rogation of  half  of  the  biblical  laws.  In 
regard  to  residents  of  Palestine,  they  ad- 
mitted that  the  Sanhedrin  had  the  right  to 
change,  amend,  suspend  or  abrogate  bib- 
lical laws,  and  numerous  cases  of  this  de- 
scription are  mentioned  in  the  Talmud.^ 


•no  rmiTD  Vvi'y  fon  irrjn  mxD3  DT-IXO  vn 
I*?  ^xn  IEIN*  Nin  pi  v^TnnBo'a^isnn  osV  vrp 


pr  Vic*  n 

§  Vide,  Sotah  16  b  N-,pD  riop>p  roSn  J  Maccoth  7  a 
on  capital  punishment;  Sanhedrin  86  and  87  on  the 
rebellious  Senator  ;  Maccoth  24  a  on  Gezeroth;  Yeba- 
moth  72  6  on  the  Ammonites  ;  do.  86  b  on  Levites  ; 
Maasar  Sheni,  last  paragraph;  Yebamoth  90  a  and 
122  a  on  abolished  laws,  and  Sotah  47  a;  also  Mai- 
monides,  Yad  ,  Mamrim  i,  4  and  iii,  4,  5. 


402  ORIGIN  OF 

All  this  could  be  done  only  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  laws  of  Moses  were  not  in- 
tended to  be  everlastingly  obligatory  in 
letter  and  spirit.  Time  and  circumstances 
change,  and  with  them  also  many  laws. 
The  rabbis  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
law  was  not  given  to  be  its  own  object ;  it 
is  intended,  "That  thou  shouldst  gain  the 
knowledge  of  Him  w^ho  spoke  and  the 
world  was  created. "jj  In  regard  to  the 
commandments  it  was  admitted,  "  The 
commandments  were  given  to  purify  the 
people  by  them,"  in  another  version:  "  To 
purify  Israel."**  In  regard  to  proselytes, 
they  went  even  so  far  as  to  state,  "Whoever 
renounces  the  worship  of  idols  is  called  a 
Jew."  The  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  it  is 
narrated,  asked  Rabbi  Judah,  the  prince, 
"Wilt  thou  give  me  a  portion  of  the  Levi- 
athan in  the  future  world?"  which  means, 
am  I,  the  Gentile,  worthy  to  enter  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  after  death?  The  rabbi 
affirmed  this  and  the  emperor  asking : 
"  HQW  is  it  that  here  thou.  wouldst  not  allow 
me  to  eat  a  piece  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  and 
there  I  should  eat  of  the  Leviathan?" 
which  means,  I  am  not  circumcised  and  do 
not  keep  the  law,  how  canst  thou  promise 
me  a  part  in  the  future  life?  But  the  rabbi 
said  :  "What  can  I  do,  when  the  law  says, 


nann  vrn 
ijyn  mm  -\vxv  ^  nx  -van  nns  -p  (stphrt  in  loco 

and  Yalkut  839.) 

**  Vans"  ns  pa  rps1?  xSvs  rnii'D  uru  N1? (in  Tal~ 

mud  and  Midrash.) 


CHRISTIANITY.  .         403 

'  No  uucircurncised  one  shall  eat  thereof,' 
(of  the  Paschal  lamb?")  (  Yerushalmi  Me- 
guillali  iii,  3.)  This  shows  clearly  that  the 
eternal  happiness  was  not  supposed  to  de- 
pend on  the  practice  of  the  law. 

2.  Paul  preaching  the  Messiah  who  had 
come  and  the  latter  end  to  be  approaching, 
as  a  strict  Pharisee,  could  only  declare  the 
law  abrogated.  The  Pharisees  repeatedly 
maintain,  in  the  Talmud  and  Midrash,  the 
abrogation  of  the  law  in  that  future  time 
(sis1?  TT.y1?.)  Paul's  arguments  on  this  sub- 
ject are  chiefly  and  often  literally  taken 
from  ancient  rabbinical  sources.  He  ar- 
gues, for  instance,  ye  are  all  dead  with 
Christ,  to  resurrect  with  him,  and  the  rab- 
bis say,  "  The  dead  is  free  from  the  law.'' ; 
Nearly  the  whole  phraseology  of  the  epistles 
is  based  upon  rabbinical  sentences.  The 
rabbis  supposed  the  latter  days  to  come 
when  all  shall  be  righteous  or  all  wicked  ; 
in  neither  case  can  the  law  remain,  for  the 
righteous  need  no  law  aiid  the;  wicked 
keep  none.  Chiefly,  however,  they  main- 
tained, the  latter  end  will  not  come  until 
the  human  race  has  reached  its  perfection, 
and  this  view  is  most  in  consonance  with 
the  justice  and  wisdom  of  God.  God 
created  man  that  the  race  reach  ultimately 
that  perfection  which  can  be  reached  under 
these  circumstances  ;  then,  however,  a  re- 
generation of  man  and  his  place  of  exist- 
ence becomes  necessary  to  afford  him  the 

p  -ntoa  nca>  jvs — ^tn 


404         .  ORIGIN  OF 

opportunity  of  reaching,  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, a  higher  degree  of  perfection. 
This  law  was  given  for  the  present  circum- 
stances, in  which  man  lives ;  it  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  another  state  of  existence. 
Therefore  then  (^a1?  vnj?1?)  the  law  must  be 
changed.  Paul  adopted  this  view  in  regard 
to  the  law,  and  maintained  on  the  one 
hand  the  law  itself  was  a  curse,  given  not 
for  blessing,  but  for  the  curse  of  sin  ;  while 
on  the  other  hand  he  advanced,  the  law 
was  good,  spiritual,  and  godly,  given  to 
educate  the  people  of  Israel,  exactly  as  all 
Pharisees  maintained,  to  educate  them  for 
the  finality  of  all  flesh.  The  only  difference 
between  Paul  and  the  Pharisees  in  this 
point  was,  he  maintained  the  Messiah  had 
come,  and  the  latter  days  were  on  hand, 
hence  the  law  was  abrogated  ;  and  they 
maintained  the  Messiah  had  not  come,  and 
the  latter  days  were  not  yet,  hence  the  law 
was  yet  in  power. 

3.  Paul  could  not  risk  the  success  of  the 
cause  he  represented,  upon  the  doubtful 
supposition,  that  the  Gentiles  would  em- 
brace with  the  gospel  the  law  also,  circum- 
cise themselves,  keep  Sabbaths  and  holi- 
days, eat  no  forbidden  food,  travel  tri- 
annually  to  Jerusalem  and  turn  in  principle 
against  the  Roman  law.  He  could  expect 
much  of  the  general  state  of  affairs,  his 
enunciation  of  the  latter  days,  the  sinful- 
ness  of  the  heathens,  and  the  salvation  of 
the  gospel ;  but  as  a  prudent  man,  he  could 
not  risk  too  much.  The  Pharisee  par  ex- 


CHRISTIANITY.  405 

cellence,  Hillel  the  Elder,  went  in  this  point 
even  beyond  Paul.  When  that  foolish 
Greek  wanted  to  be  converted,  provided  ho 
could  teach  him  the  law,  while  he  could 
stand  on  one  leg,  Hillel  replied,  "Whatever 
hurts  thee,  that  shalt  thou  not  do  to  thy 
neighbor.  This  is  the  principle,  the  rest  is 
commentary,  go  and  finish  thy  studies." 
We  would  not  maintain  that  the  event  ac- 
tually took  place;  nevertheless  the  anec- 
dote being  in  vogue  and  ascribed  to  so  high 
an  authority  as  Hillel,  shows  that  it  was  a 
prevailing  opinion  among  the  Pharisees, 
that  the  heathen  barbarism  and  idolatry 
were  to  be  broken  down,  and  this  was  the 
first  step  to  their  conversion.  They  even 
maintained,  if  the  Gentile  observes  the 
law  (the  ceremonial  portion  thereof,  of 
course)  his  reward  could  not  be  much,  as 
he  was  never  commanded  to  observe  it.f 
Well  then,  from  a  strict  Pharisean  point  of 
view,  Paul  had  no  reason  to  risk  his  cause 
on  the  acceptance  of  the  law  by  the  Gen- 
tiles. He  came  among  them  to  break  down 
heathenism  and  idolatry  with  all  their  bar- 
barity and  absurdity,and  to  bring  them  the 
belief  in  One  God  and  the  moral  law  con- 
nected with  this  belief;  all  other  things 
were  of  secondary  importance  to  him,  as 
the  means  are  to  the  object  to  be  obtained. 
The  Messiah  and  "  Son  of  God,"  the  end  of 
all  flesh  and  the  approaching  day  of  judg- 
ment, like  the  glossalaline,  baptism,  Lord's 

tVide  Abodah    Sarah   3    the    discussion    on 


406  ORIGIN  OF 

supper  and  holy  ghost,  were  nothing  but. 
means  to  his  great  object,  to  break  down 
heathenism  and  unfurl  the  banner  of  One 
God  and  pure  morals. 

4.  He  must  naturally  have  been  opposed 
to  a  large  number  of  Mosaic  and  traditional 
laws,  on  account  of  their  local  nature  and 
their  limitations  in  time.  Standing  in  the 
very  midst  of  the  scholastic  disputes  of  the 
Hillelites  and  the  Shammaites,  Paul  may 
have  been  disgusted  with  their  hair-split- 
ting casuistry,  the  externality  and  accident- 
ally of  observances  and  the  hypocrisy 
connected  therewith.  But  aside  of  all  that 
he  was  obliged  to  oppose  all  local  laws, 
since  he,  in  going  .to  the  Gentiles,  left  all 
ideas  of  locality  behind  and  attempted  uni- 
versality for  the  province  of  religion.  He 
could  not  impose  circumcision  on  them, 
because  it  was  a  command  to  Abraham f 
his  seed,  and  the  servants  he  possessed, 
and  not  to  the  Gentiles.  The  Pharisees 
who  wanted  to  attach  the  heathens  to  Is- 
rael, demanded  circumcision  and  baptism  ; 
Paul  who  did  not  think  of  attaching,  who 
maintained  to  carry  out  the  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles  for  themselves,  demanded 
baptism  only.  He  could  not  command 
them  to  observe  the  biblical  holidays,  each 
of  which  has  a  local  agricultural,  and  a 
Hebrew  historical  reason  ;  for  he  converted 
Gentiles  who  live  in  different  climates  and 
have  another  history.  The  Hebrews  in  the 
Babylonian  captivity  did  not  observe  the 
three  feasts.  He  could  not  urge  upon  them 


CHRISTIANITY.  407 

to  adopt  the  Mosaic  fabric  of  government, 
without  expecting  to  be  crucified  as  a  rebel 
against  Rome ;  nor  could  he  expect  of  the 
converted  heathens  that  they  would  obey 
the  Mosaic  laws  with  the  rabbinical  com- 
mentaries on  forbidden  food.  He  could  not 
wish  to  impose  upon  them  the  Mosaic  polity 
with  all  the  sacrifices,  priests,  and  pompous 
ceremonials,  which  were  originally  in- 
tended for  Palestine  only ;  nor  could  he 
expect  of  them  to  let  their  beards  and  their 
hair  grow,  wear  the  over-garment  with 
fringes,  or  adhere  to  any  such  laws  which 
Moses  ordained  originally  to  establish  a 
distinct  nationality  of  those  who  were 
Egyptians  in  dress  and  appearance.  There- 
fore he  was  obliged  to  declare  many  laws 
abrogated,  and  he  could  do  this  without 
any  conflict  with  his  Pharisean  conscience. 

5.  Expecting  only  a  short  time  .to  elapse 
between  his  preaching  the  gospel  and  the 
coming  of  the  last  day,  he  could  not  im- 
pose on  them  any  law  which  they  must  have 
studied  and  known  before  they  could  prac- 
tice it.  If  he  even  did  not  expect  it,  he 
could  not  demand  any  thing  that  looked 
like  permanency  or  like  an  established  in- 
stitution, which  would  have  contradicted 
his  predictions,  on  which  he  based  the  mis- 
sion of  Jesus,  his  gospel,  and  his  own  ap- 
peals. 

Therefore  Paul  laid  aside  every  thing 
that  was  in  any  wise  in  his  way  to  success. 
He  abolished  circumcision,  and  stood  his 
ground  firmly  against  his  colleagues  of  Je- 


408  ORIGIN  OP 

rusalem  under  Jarnes  and  Peter,  who  op- 
posed it.*  He  advanced  the  position  that 
those  who  are  circumcised  must  keep  the 
whole  law,  something  contrary  to  Moses 
and  the  Pharisees,  as  we  have  seen  above. 
Circumcision  is  a  commandment  like  any 
other  ;  he  who  circumcises  himself  does  no 
more  take  upon  himself  the  duty  of  keep- 
ing the  whole  law,  than  he  who  is  not  cir- 
cumcised is  free  of  every  law.  Both  as- 
sertions of  Paul  are  incorrect. 

He  abolished  the  laws  concerning  for- 
bidden food;  exposed  Peter's  hypocricy, 
who  was  afraid  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles  of 
Antioch,  ©n  account  of  the  messengers  of 
James,  although  before  they  arrived  he  had 
done  so  ;  and  permitted  them  even  to  eat 
from  the  sacrificial  meals.f  On  this  occa- 
sion he  copies  almost  literally  from  the  an- 
cient rabbis  : 

NPDD  no  mhn  a^V^N  rni3>n  ly-p  "pVi  oV 

"  My  heart  and  thy  heart  know  that  the 
idols  are  nothing."  (Yalkut  289.) 

He  abolished  the  Sabbath  and  the  holi- 
days, and  never  said  that  either  a  "  Lord's 
Day,"  or  any  holiday,  should  be  appointed 
in  their  place.  (Romans  xiv,  5,)  "  One  man 
esteemeth  one  day  above  another  ;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man 
be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  He 
that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto 
the  Lord  ;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the 

*Romans  ii,  25  to  29;  I  Corinth.  vii,18;  Galat.  v,  2, 
3;  Coloss.  ii,  11,  and  elsewhere. 
t  Komans  xiv,  14 ;  I  Corinth,  viii,  9 ;  x,  25 ;  Timothy 


CHRISTIANITY.  409 

day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth  not  regard  it."  It 
is  foolish  of  Christian  clergymen  to  attempt 
any  proof  from  the  gospels  for  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when 
neither  Jesus  nor  his  apostles  thought  of 
abolishing  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  Paul 
expressly  declared  one  day  to  be  as  good 
as  another. 

He  declared  the  entire  law  abolished,  and 
argues  most  zealously  against  circumcision 
and  the  law.  He  did  this  certainly  in 
broad  general  terms,  on  account  of  the  un- 
popularity of  the  Hebrew  laws  among  the 
Gentiles.  But  this  alarmed  his  colleagues 
in  Jerusalem ,  and  they  attacked  him.  This 
gave  rise  to  the  discussions,  of  which  we 
possess  only  Paul's  arguments  in  his  epis- 
tles ;  the  other  side,  the  arguments  of  James, 
Peter  and  their  co-laborers,  were  most 
likely,  like  the  original  gospel  story,  got 
out  of  the  way  of  Gentile  Christians  by 
the  teachers  of  Christianity  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries,  on  account  of  their 
Jewish  law-abiding  contents  ;  precisely  as 
the  original  Christian  sects  were  excom- 
municated. Still  the  opposition  which 
Paul  encountered  in  his  own  camp,  and 
his  own  conviction,  that  there  can  be  no 
morals  without  moral  laws,  as  little  as  we 
can  imagine  this  physical  world  without 
physical  laws,  forced  him  to  come  out  of 
his  generalities  and  condescend  to  special- 
ties. Love,  as  the  only  foundation  of  law, 
is  insufficient.  Incest,  self-pollution  and 
the  kindred  crimes  then  at  their  very 
27 


410  ORIGIN  OF 

hight,  can  hardly  be  considered  crimes 
from  the  pure  stand-point  of  love.  It  is 
not  a  generic  term  that  covers  all  special- 
ties. But  if  it  even  did,  not  every  body  is 
capable  to  decide  for  himself,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, what  *love  dictates.  The  be- 
nighted widow,  who  sacrifices  herself  on 
the  pyre,  believes  to  obey  the  voice  of  love ; 
so  do  the  barbarians  who  kill  their  aged 
parents,  because  they  are  burdensome  to 
themselves  and  others.  It  is  foolish  to 
think  that  liberty  signifies  no  laws,  when 
understanding  itself  in  its  unbounded 
freedom  obeys  the  laws  of  logic.  If  a  cer- 
tain action  is  wrong,  reason  declares  it  to 
be  so  ;  hence  it  is  a  law.  Say  it  is  wrong 
to  steal,  reason  declares  it  so,  and  it  is  a 
law  not  to  steal.  Is  it  moral  freedom  to  be 
permitted  to  steal  ?  The  same  precisely  is 
the  case  with  all  the  moral  laws.  All 
which  reason  has  pronounced  as  such, 
is  moral  law,  and  it  is  moral  freedom 
to  be  fully  capacitated  to  obey  them,  as  it 
is  political  freedom  to  obey  only  the  laws 
springing  from  the  idea  of  absolute  justice. 
Love  as  the  only  law  did  very  well  for  a 
short  time  among  newly  converted  persons, 
still  inspired  with  higher  ideals,  and  still 
dreading  the  momentary  approach  of  the 
end  of  all  flesh.  It  was  undoubtedly  an  ex- 
cellent medium  to  arrest  barbarism  and 
cruelty,  selfishness  and  crime,  as  Paul 
found  it  among  the  heathens ;  but  under 
all  ordinary  circumstances  of  society,  love 
can  only  be  pronounced  as  the  highest  mo- 


CHRISTIANITY.  411 

tive  of  all  morality.  Generalities,  however, 
will  never  suffice ;  there  must  be  defini- 
t'ons  to  make  it  clear  and  well  understood 
what  love  requires  one  to  do  in  particular 
cases.  These  definitions,  however,are  laws. 
It  is  foolish  to  declaim  of  freedom  from  the 
law,  as  though  it  was  moral  freedom  to  re- 
ject the  moral  law. 

Paul,  therefore,  in  the  opposition  offered 
him  by  his  colleagues  of  Jerusalem,  dis- 
covered soon  the  necessity  of  law  for  his 
converts.  But  he  had  declared  the  law 
abrogated,  and  so  he  was  obliged  to  repeat 
some  of  the  laws  of  Moses  and  even  tradi- 
tions of  Israel  as  his  own,  without  system, 
or  organic  totality,  and  without  either  orig- 
inality or  sufficiency.  His  laws  and  rules 
(Romans  xii;  xiii;  I  Corinth,  v;  vi ;  vii ; 
Ephesians  iv ;  v ;  vi  and  elsewhere)  are  a 
poor  repetition  of  Mosaic  and  rabbinical 
laws  in  no  kind  of  order  or  system,  Still  he 
was  obliged  to  confess  at  last :  "  Now  the 
end  of  the  commandment  is  charity  out  of  a 
pure  heart,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and 
of  faith  unfeigned  :  from  which  some  hav- 
ing swerved  have  turned  aside  unto  vain 
jangling,  desiring  to  be  teachers  of  the  law, 
understanding  neither  what  they  say  nor 
whereof  they  affirm.  But  we  know  that 
the  law  is  good  if  a  man  use  it  lawfully." 
(Timothy  i,  5  to  8.)  But  then  to  maintain 
his  former  position  he  wants  to  make 
Timothy  believe  that  the  law  was  made  for 
criminals  only ;  but  who  knows  not  that 
the  positive  moral  laws  are  not  for  crimi- 
27* 


412  ORIGIN  OF 

nals  only.  Honor  thy  parents,  love  thy 
neighbor,  support  the  poor,  protect  the 
weak,  and  ihe  like,  is  law  to  the  best  and 
holiest  ones  of  all  ages. 

This  double  position  of  abrogating  the 
whole  law  in  the  first  instance,  and  then 
being  under  the  obligation  of  reinstating 
the  moral  laws  of  the  Hebrews  as  laws, 
and  not  as  mere  love,  faith  or  hope,  led 
Paul  into  the  most  terrible  sophistry  on 
the  law  and  its  abrogation.  It  is  with  him 
both  good  and  bad,  a  curse  and  a  blessing, 
freedom  and  slavery,  and  God  knows  what 
not.  This  leads  him  sometimes  entirely 
astray,  to  misquotations  from  the  Bible, 
quibbling  on  words,  and  endless  contra- 
dictions and  repetitions.  One  of  the  most 
extraordinary  blunders  of  his  is  this : 
"  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the 
promises  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to 
seeds,  as  of  many ;  but  as.  of  one,  And  to 
thy  seed,  which  is  Christ."  (Galat.  iii,  16.) 
Now  jnr  **  seed  "  is  a  collective  noun  which 
has  no  singular  number,  and  is  therefore 
never  used  in  the  plural  form  anywhere 
in  the  Bible.  Paul  knew  very  well  that 
seed  has  no  singular,  and  always  refers  to 
many,  so  that  Abraham  was  to  be  told 
especially,  "  For  this  Isaac  shall  be  called 
thy  seed,"  because  he  was  one,  and  is  no 
seed  ;  but  in  his  hot  debates  with  his  oppo- 
nents he  resorted  frequently  to  such  small 
things.  Paul's  accommodation  to  the  pre- 
judices of  the  Gentiles  in  regard  to  the 
law  gave  him  great  trouble,  and  became 


CHRISTIANITY.  413 

in  after  times  the  source  of  great  confusion 
in  the  Church.  The  Jewish  law  was  con- 
sidered rejected,  and  law  must  exist;  this 
gave  birth  to  the  cannon  laws  and  all  the 
miseries  springing  from  this  source.  His 
main  point,  the  approach  of  the  end  of  all 
flesh,  upon  which  he  based  the  entire  fabric 
of  redemption  and  the  necessity  of  the 
Redeemer  and  His  resurrection,  gave  him 
also  much  trouble  in  after  days.  His  con- 
verts began  to  doubt  the  approach  of  the 
end,  hence  also  the  necessity  of  a  Redeemer, 
.and  he  admonished  them  frequently  to 
hope  and  wait  patiently.  This  accommo- 
dation to  the  weakness  and  credulity  of 
the  Gentiles  became  a  source  of  folly  in 
the  Church  after  rAs  days.  There  came 
not  only  the  great  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  "  Messiah  "  of  Peter,  "  the  Son  of  God  " 
of  Paul,  the  "  Logos  "  of  John,  and  the 
human  nature  of  Jesus,  with  the  "  Holy 
Ghost"  and  the  "Father,"  which  after 
long  controversies,  persecutions  and  ex- 
communications, resulted  in  the  adoption 
of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  which  is 
heathen  in  its  essence  and  Jewish  in  its 
construction  ;  but  chiefly  the  fabric  of  re- 
demption which  Paul  had  built  up  for  im- 
mediate purposes,  gave  rise  to  the  most  un- 
reasonable theories,  of  which  Christianity 
still  suffers.  The  end  has  not  come,  and 
few  eccentric  enthusiasts  expect  it  to  come 
in  their  days  ;  still  the  Christian  prays  to 
be  redeemed  of  its  terrors,  and  redemption 
in  the  sense  of  Paul  signifies  nothing  else. 


414  ORIGIN  OF 

Paul's  "  Son  of  God  "  has  not  come  in  his 
days,  as  be  proclaimed,  the  resurrection 
and  the  clay  of  judgment  did  not  come  to 
pass  ;  still  the  Christian  must  believe  Jesus 
is  the  "Son  of  God,"  and  the  Almighty  is 
not  the  Almighty,  for  all  might  was  given 
to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  he  must  wait 
until  he  will  come  to  judge  the  living  and 
the  dead.  These  perversions  of  the  words 
of  Paul,  the  extension  of  his  plan  of  re- 
demption beyond  his  time,  brought  Chris- 
tianity in  gross  contradiction  with  the  un- 
derstanding, which  leads  to  absurdity  only. 
The  moral  of  the  thing  is,  great  men 
must  not  resort  to  fictions,  or  to  any  ac- 
commodation, however  efficient  means  they 
may  offer  for  the  tome  being.  And  Paul 
was  a  great  man.  The  idea  of  demolish- 
ing heathenism,  and  to  do  it  alone,  all 
alone,  opposed  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  op- 
posed by  those  whose  redemption  scheme 
he  adopted  and  whose  master  he  glorified, 
shows  a  great,  energetic  and  resolute  man. 
The  determination  to  bring  the  knowledge 
of  the  One  God  and  the  pure  moral  law  to 
debased  and  corrupted  heathens,  is  holy 
and  admirable.  The  manner  in  which  he 
carried  out  his  determination  and  his  bril- 
liant successes,  however  numerously  out- 
side causes  may  have  favored  his  enter- 
prise, testify  to  his  greatness.  Like  all 
brilliant  and  successful  men  in  history,  he 
understood  his  age,  stood  upon  its  summit, 
adopted  the  most  available  means  to  carry 
out  his  plans,  felt  an  interest  in,  and  an 


CHRISTIANITY.  415 

attachment  to  the  whole  human  family, 
worked  out  his  own  convictions  and  his 
own  destiny  without  regard  to  sect,  creed, 
country  or  people.  However  numerous  his 
imperfections  may  be,  he  was  a  great,  en- 
ergetic and  independent  man,  in  compari- 
son to  whom  Peter  and  James  were  monks, 
visionary  Essenes,  stubborn  and  narrow 
sectarians.  Great  men  must  not  resort  to 
fiction  or  accommodation  to  prevailing 
superstitions  or  prejudices,  and  they  can 
not  do  it  without  injury  to  themselves  and 
their  cause. 

So  we  know  the  principal  features 
from  the  creed  of  Paul.  It  is  briefly 
told :  It  is  one  God,  one  moral  law  and 
©ne  destiny  to  the  whole  human  family, 
the  same  great  idea  of  which  all  prophets 
since  the  days  of  Moses  spoke  in  terms  of 
intense  inspiration.  The  means  which  he 
used  to  electrify  and  conquer  the  heathens 
are  his  proclamations  of 

The  last  day  approaching. 

All  men  are  sinners. 

All  go  to  destruction. 

But  God  revealed  his  grace. 

He  sent  his  son  to  die  for  the  sins  of  all. 

To  proclaim  the  approach  of  the  resur- 
rection. 

Those  who  believe  in  him  will  be  saved 
from  the  terrors  of  the  last  day,  their  bodies 
will  be  changed  into  immortal  ones,  and  if 
dead,  they  will  resurrect  and  become  im- 
mortal. 


416  ORIGIN  OF 

Those  who  believe  in  him  must  do  all 
which  love  dictates. 

Whether  Paul  himself  believed  these 
means  to  convert  the  heathens,  is  very 
doubtful.  To  us  it  appears  certain  that  he 
did  not.  He  counted  upon  the  power  of 
truth  to  overcome  the  pernicious  effect  of 
his  means  in  converting  them  ;  but  in  this 
he  was  mistaken. 

We  have  only  to  add  a  few  more  remarks, 
Paul  was  no  particular  friend  of  wo- 
man. He  considered  her  the  subject  of 
man  who  communicates  with  Christ  only 
through  her  husband.  "  I  would  have  y*ou 
know,"  he  said  to  the  Corinthians  (I  Cor. 
xi,  3)  "  that  the  head  of  every  man  is 
Christ ;  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the 
man."  He  did  not  consider  the  woman  as  the 
image  of  God,  iri  saying  (ibid.)  "  For  a  man 
indeed  ought  not  to  cover*  his  head  (while 
praying  or  prophesying)  for  as  much  as  he 
is  the  image  and  glory  of  God  ;  but  the 
woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man.  For  the 
man  is  not  of  the  woman  ;  but  the  woman 
of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man  created 
for  the  woman  ;  but  the  woman  for  the 
man.  For  this  cause  ought  the  woman  to 
have  power  (one  who  governs  her)  on  her 
head,  because  of  the  angels,"  (who  said  to 
her,  "And  he  shall  have  dominion  over 

*  The  custom  to  pray  bare-headed  was  introduced 
by  Paul  among  the  Gentile  Christians  rl  Cor.  xi) 
most  likely  with  the  intention  to  separate  them  from 
the  Jews  and  distinguish  them  outwardly.  It  is  un- 
doubtedly there 'ore  that  the  Jews  to  this  day  are  so 
much  prejudiced  against  this  custom  as  against  every 
thing  that  came  from  Acher. 


CHRISTIANITY,  417 

thee.")  Here  is  one  of  Paul's  small  argu- 
ments from  the  Bible ;  for  there  it  says  ex- 
pressly (Gen.  i,  27,)  "And  God  created 
Adam  in  his  image ;  in  the  image  of  God 
created  He  him ;  male  and  female 
created  He  them."  The  last  member  of 
the  verse  is  the  supplement  to  the  whole, 
and  taking  Adam  as  the  name  of  the  race, 
it  tells  plainly  that  both  male  and  female 
were  created  in  the  image  of  God.  But  this 
is  not  his  worst  argument  on  this  subject. 
He  goes  on  to  prove  "  by  nature  "  that  man 
must  uncover  his  head  when  praying,  and 
woman  must  cover  her  head..  "  Doth  not 
even  nature  itself  teach  you,  that,  if  a  man 
have  long  hair,  it  is  a  sharne  unto  him? 
But  if  a  woman  have  long  hair,  it  is  a 
glory  to  her:  for  her  hair  is  given  her  for  a 
covering."  This  argument  is  childish 
enough  to  rouse  the  suspicion  of  the  critic 
against  its  authenticity.  Because  it  was 
considered  a  shame  in  Corinth  for  a  man 
to  wear  long  hair,  therefore  nature  teaches 
that  woman  must  cover  her  head  in  prayer. 
He  could  just  as  well  have  argued,  because 
nature  causes  hair  to  grow  on  man's  head, 
and  you  are  ashamed  of  nature's  gift,  there- 
fore you  are  very  foolish.  Or,  since  the 
men  of  Corinth  are  ashamed  to  wear  long 
hair,and  the  women  of  Corinth  glory  in  their 
longhair,  therefore  they  are  shameless. 

The  worst,  however,  he  inflicted  on 
woman,  is  his  command:  "Let  your 
women  keep  silence  in  the  churches:  for  it 
is  not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak  ;  but 


418  •     ORIGIN  OF 

they  are  commanded  to  be  under  obedience, 
as  also  saith  the  law."  (I  Cor.  xiv,  34.) 
Poor  Mrs.  or  Miss  Rev.  so  and  so  of  our 
enlightened  days,  and  Quakeress  this  or 
that!  you  are  all  sinners,  transgressors  of 
the  law  according  to  Paul.  Of  course,  Paul 
can  not  tell  where  the  law  enjoins  this  ab- 
surdity, or  why  he  referred  to  the  law 
wbich  he  pronounced  a  curse,  and  of 
which  he  emancipated  his  converts  ;  never- 
theless he  wanted  to  doom  the  women  to 
silence,  and  put  his  innovation  into  the 
shoes  of  Moses  whose  sister  was  a  pro- 
phetess, and  in  no  religious  respect  makes 
any  difference  between  sexes. 

He  had  not  .only  so  small  an  opinion  of 
the  women  of  Corinth,  he  also  advised  his 
faithful  disciple  Timothy,  "  Let  the  women 
learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection.  But  I 
suffer  not  a  woman  to  teach,  nor  to  usurp 
authority  over  the  man,  but  to  be  in  si- 
lence." After  referring  to  Eve  to  have 
sinned  first,  he  prescribes  for  her  this 
novel  salvation,  "She  shall  be  saved  in 
child-bearing,  if  they  continue  in  faith  and 
charity  and  holiness  with  sobriety."  (I 
Timothy  ii,  11  to  15.)  This  is  plain  lan- 
guage. Woman  has  nothing  to  say,  she 
must  obey  her  husband,  bear  children  and 
bring  them  up  in  the  faith,  or  else  she  re- 
mains damned,  for  she  was  the  first  to  sin. 
Christ  does  not  save  her;  her  husband 
and  her  children  do,  if  she  brings  them  up 
right.  Unmarried  and  childless  women, 
and  those  whose  children  go  astray,  are 


CHRISTIANITY.  419 

not  saved  at  all.  Paul  says  the  same  thing 
over  to  the  Ephesians.  "Wives,  submit 
yourselves  unto  your  own  husbands  as 
•unto  the  Lord.  For  the  husband  is  the 
head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  thehea.d 
of  the  church,  and  he  is  the  savior  of  the 
body.  Therefore  as  the  church  is  subject 
unto  Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be  to  their 
husbands  in  every  thing."  (Ephesians  v, 
22  to  24.)  This  can  hardly  be  misunder- 
stood. He  says,  the  body  of  the  man  is 
saved,  on  the  last  day,  by  Christ  ;  but  the 
body  of  the  woman,  having  nothing  to  ex- 
pect of  Christ,  is  saved  b}^  her  husband,  by 
conceiving,  bearing  and  educating  children 
in  the  faith.  This  is  her  destiny,  her  re- 
ligion, her  hope,  her  immortality.  Poor 
maidens  and  childless  wives  !  you  are  all 
lost  according  to  Paul's  doctrine.  Poor 
•wives !  you  are  the  silent  tools  of  your 
husbands,  and  the  servants  of  your  chil- 
dren. 

Still  Mr.  Renan,  in  ''The  Apostles,"  de- 
claims hoi  low*  phrases  on  Paul's  liberality 
to  women,  because  he  permitted  a  widow 
of  three  scores  of  years  to  be  a  deaconess 
in  the  church.  It  is  pardonable  with  Mr. 
Renan  that  he  knows  nothing  about  the 
social  position  of  woman  among  the  He- 
brews of  those  days  ;  but  it  is  unpardonable 
that  he  knew  not  the  above  and  similar 
passages  in  the  epistles. 

The  Corinthians,  it  appears,  were  a  re- 
fractory congregation  and  gave  Paul  a  good 
deal  of  trouble.  There  was  division  of 


420  ORIGIN  OP 

opinions,  quarrel  and  skepticism  among 
them,  morals  \vere  at  a  low  ebb,  faith  and 
hope  on  the  decline.  Paul  had  his  troubles 
with  them,  although  they  paid  him  no 
wages.  It  appears  that  skeptics  from 
Corinth  made  an  attempt  to  out-wit  him, 
which  was  not  an  easy  task.  They  asked 
him,  it  the  last  day  is  soon  to  come,  how 
about  marriage  ?  A  last  day  paint  in  our 
country,  after  having  preached  on  the  end 
of  all  flesh  to  be  nigh,  was  offered,  by  some 
rogue,  a  fine  and  very  cheap  piece  of  pro- 
perty, and  the  saint  purchased  it  without 
hesitation  ;  but  he  could  not  get  it,  after 
he  had  again  verified  the  adage,  no  physi- 
cian takes  his  own  medicine.  Paul,  how- 
ever, was  not  so  easily  caught ;  he  was  too" 
shrewd  for  them.  He  answered  (I  Cor.  vii) 
"It  is  good  for  a  man  not  to  touch  a 
woman" — .  "I  say,  therefore,  to  the  un- 
married and  widows,  It  is  good  for  them, 
if  they  abide  even  as  I  "  (unmarried.)  "  For 
I  would  that  all  men  were  even  as  I  my- 
self "  (unmarried.)  Only  'Ho  avoid  forni- 
cation, he  would  permit  them  to  marry." 
The  questions  are,  how  shall  those  un- 
married women  be  saved?  why  are  the 
Protestants  opposed  to  the  celibacy  of 
Catholic  priests  and  nuns  ?  and  what  must 
become  of  the  human  race,  if  marriage  is 
abolished  ?  Paul  could  easily  answer  these 
queries.  The  end  o/  all  flesh  being  nigh, 
therefore  propagation  of  the  race  is  useless. 
It  is  likewise  useless  for  unmarried  women 
and  widows  to  seek  salvation  in  marriage, 


CHRISTIANITY.  421 

whereas  the  end  would  come  before  they 
could  educate  their  children  in  the  faith. 

If  any  bod  3^  doubts  that  Paul  proclaimed 
the  end  of  all  flesh  to  be  nigh,  let  him  take 
into  consideration  his  views  on  marriage 
in  I  Cor.  vii,  and  be  convinced.  No  sane 
man — and  Paul  was  a  prudent  man — can 
wish  for  the  abolition  of  the  institution  of 
marriage,  unless  he  favors  free  love,  which 
Paul  did  not,  or  he  believes  in  the  close 
approach  of  the  end  of  all  flesh,  as  he  did 
proclaim.  But  physicians  never  take  their 
own  medicine;  so  Paul  married  after  all, 
and  left  daughters  in  Judea,  as  we  shall 
see  hereafter..  We  know  not  whether  he 
did  it  "  to  avoid  fornication,"  or  because 
he  did  not  believe  his  own  doctrine,  we  can 
not  te.ll.  He  keeps  his  track  clear,  how- 
ever, by  stating  in  this  connection,  "  But  I 
speak  this  (against  marriage)  by  permission 
and  not  of  commandment." 

We  can  imagine  but  one  cause  of  Paul's 
contempt  of  woman  ;  it  appears  that  the 
heathen  women  were  much  more  lascivious, 
noisy  and  refractory  than  the  male  por- 
tion of  that  society,  who,  as  Paul  repeatedly 
states,  were  degraded  enough.  (Romans 
i,  18  and  Ephesians  iv,  17.) 

All  the  declamations  of  superficial  ra- 
tionalists on  Paul's  love  of  liberty  are  air- 
castles,  founded  upon  wind  and  imagina- 
tion. The  truth  is  that  he  expressed  him- 
self fully  and  intelligibly  in  favor  of  all 
governments,  however  despotic,  in  con- 
demnation of  all  revolutions,  however 


422  ORIGIN  OF 

just,  and  in  favor  of  every  personal  servi- 
tude, however  outrageous.  In  regard  to 
public  government,  he  wrote  to  the  Ro- 
mans (xiii,  1) : 

"Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the 
higher  powers,  For  there  is  no  power  but 
of  God ;  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the 
power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God  :  and 
they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves 
damnation.  For  rules  are  not  a  terror  to 
good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt  thou 
then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power  ?  do  that 
which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise 
of  the  same:  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God 
to  thee  for  good.  But  if  thou  do  that  which 
is  evil,  be  afraid ;  for  he  beareth  not  the 
sword  in  vain  :  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God, 
a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that 
doeth  evil.  Wherefore  must  needs  be  sub- 
ject, not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  con- 
science' sake.  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye 
tribute  also :  for  they  are  God's  ministers, 
attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing. 
Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues  ;  tribute 
to  whom  tribute  is  due;  custom  to  whom 
custom;  fear  to  whom  fear ;  honor  to  whom 
honor." 

This  is  the  language  of  a  prudent  man, 
who  dreads  crucifixion  and  attempts  to  in- 
gratiate himself  with  those  in  power,  and 
their  faithful  subjects ;  but  it  is  also 
fatal  to  every  emotion  of  freedom  and 
desire  after  liberty,  on  the  part  of  those  who 
suffer  under  the  wicked  oppression  of 
tyrants  and  despots.  It  is  the  Scriptural 
source  of  potentates  "  by  the  grace  of 
God,"  the  standing  text  in  all  churches 
and  schools  in  Christendom,  where  des- 
potism sways  its  awful  scepter,  and  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  423 

hostage  of  thorns  in  the  hands  of  soulless 
tools  and  trembling  slaves.  If  those  that 
resist  "  the  powers  that  be,"  "  shall  receive 
to  themselves  damnation ;"  then  we  pity 
William  Tell,  Oliver  Cromwell,  and  George 
Washington,  who,  according  to  this  doc- 
trine, must  be  the  most  damned  among  the 
damned,  and  while  this  doctrine  prevails, 
Christendom  must  continue  to  groan  un- 
der the  oppression  of  a  few  arbitrary 
despots,  without  any  hope  for  the  better. 
Paul  was  by  no  means  more  charitably 
disposed  toward  servants  or  slaves.  Re- 
garding them,  he  says  (Ephes.  vi,  5): 

"  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are 
your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with 
fear  and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your 
heart,  as  unto  Christ ;  not  with  eye-service, 
as  men-pleasers ;  but  as  the  servants  of 
Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the 
heart ;  with  good  will  doing  service,  as  to 
the  Lord,  and  not  to  men  :  knowing  that 
whatsoever  good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the 
same  shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord,  whether 
he  be  bond  or  free;" 

He  was  so  well  pleased  with  this  ad- 
monition that  he  repeated  it  literally  to 
the  Colossians  (iv,  1.)  This  says  not  that 
masters  should  set  free  their  servants  after 
six  years'  service  or  any  time  (the  law  was 
a  curse  with  Paul,)  or  that  the  slave  should 
liberate  himself;  it  says,  servant,  slave, 
be  obedient  with  fear  and  trembling,  and 
do  the  will  of  the  master  as  if  it  was  the 
will  of  God.  We  have  no  doubt  this  was 
a  very  popular  text  among  negro  preachers 
in  the  late  slave  States ;  it  did  excellent 


424  OllIGIN    OF 

service  in  Russia  among  the  serfs,  and  in 
the  dark  ages,  among  the  stubborn  peas- 
ants who  may  have  cursed  their  masters  ; 
but  it  is  a.  direct  condemnation  of  every 
attempt  at  personal  freedom,  or  at  the  vio- 
lation of  the  established  relations  between 
master  and  servant. 

One  thinking  for  a  moment  over  these 
statements  of  Paul,  is  forced  to  the  conclu- 
sion, it  could  not  be  Paul's  intention  that 
the  doctrines  thus  pronounced  should  ex- 
ercise any  influence  on  a  largo  community, 
or  for  any  length  of  time.    He  could  only 
have  intended  them  as  provisional  meas- 
ures for  the  time  being.    He  was  a  free- 
born    man,    the    son    of  a    liberty-loving 
people,  and  had  grown  up  in  a  community 
which  sacrificed  itself  for  its  independence  ; 
he  could  not  be  a  slave.    But  the  Jew,  on 
account  of  his  love  of  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence,    was    odious     to    the    Roman. 
Therefore  Paul  declared  the  law  abrogated 
and  the  Roman  authorities   appointed  by 
God  ;  and  the  right  of  the  masters  to  their 
slaves  as  something  quite  just.    He  must 
have  known  that  his  declarations  might 
become  a  curse     to    humanity;     but   he 
preached  the  end  of  all  ilesh  to  be  on  hand, 
hence  all  power  was  to  go  any  how.    He 
did  not  want  them  to  squander  the   few 
days  before  the  end  in  any  worldly  im- 
provement, in  any  reform  of  social  or  po- 
litical relations.    Therefore  he  admonished 
them  to  uphold  the  statu  quo  in  every  re- 
spect.   This  is  the  only  justification  we  can 


CHRISTIANITY.  425 

find  for  Paul's  doctrines  of  subjection  and 
slavery. 

Knowing  as  we  do  now  this  great  man 
with  his  great  faults,  we  are  fully  prepared 
to  follow  up  and  control  the  statements  of 
"The  Acts"  concerning  him.  We  might 
conclude  this  chapter  with  Paul's  own 
words  of  Anathema  and  Maranatha  to  all 
unbelievers  (I  Cor.  xvi,  22)  or  the  other 
curses  which  he  fires  away  against  his  col- 
leagues differing  with  him  in  opinion  ;  but 
we  do  not  wish  to  terrify  the  critics,  whose 
nerves  are  frequently  very  sensitive.  We 
invite  thorough  examination.  It  is  our 
only  aim  to  serve  the  cause  of  truth,  and 
we  do  it  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  GENTILE*. 
In  Damascus — it  was  in  Damascus,  where 
Paul  first  preached  Christianity,  his  own 
original  Gospel,  based  on  the  belief  of  the 
approach  of  the  end  of  all  flesh,  the  resur- 
rection and  the  last  judgment — and  in  Da- 
mascus he  was  unsuccessful,  no  congrega- 
tion was  organized  and  he,  like  the  spies  of 
Joshua  at  Jericho,  escaped  from  the  city 
•'through  a  window  in  a  basket"  being 
"  let  down  by  the  wall,"  as  the  garrison  of 
the  governor  under  King  Aretas  desired  to 
apprehend  him.  (II  Cor.  xi,  32.)  Although 
the  strategy  in  the  escape  of  Paul,  as  an 
imitation  of  a  Scriptural  event,  looks  rather 
28 


426  ORIGIN  OF 

suspicious,  and  may  have  been  a  figure  of 
speech,  on  the  part  of  Paul,  to  describe  his 
flight  from  that  city,  still  the  main  fact 
that  he  first  preached  his  Gospel  in  Damas- 
cus and  not  in  any  place  in  Judea  can 
hardly  be  doubted.  (Galat.  i,  17.)  The 
author  of  "  The  Acts,"  however,  embraces 
this  opportunity  to  put  in  a  miracle,  and  a 
slur  on  the  Jews  whom  he  did  not  like. 
While  Paul  says  nothing  concerning  the 
Jews  of  Damascus,  "  Tli£  Acts  "  state,  "And 
after  that  many  days  were  fulfilled,  the 
Jews  took  counsel  to  kill  him:  But  their 
laying  await  was  known  to  Saul."  (ix,  23.) 
If  this  was  the  fact,  we  can  not  see  why 
Paul  should  not  have  stated  it.  The  har- 
rnonizers,  of  course,  tell  us,  Luke  knew 
what  Paul  did  not  state,  but  they  have  not 
the  least  proof  in  substantiation  of  their 
hypothesis.  Luke  is  always  eager  to  glo- 
rify the  Gentiles  and  to  debase  the  Jews,  be- 
cause one  of  his  main  objects  is  to  show 
that  the  Gentiles,  by  the  Gospel,  are  the 
heirs  of  the  covenant.  Thereiore  he  never 
forgets  to  introduce  some  devout  Gentile 
and  to  administer  a  slur  on  the  Jews.  This 
is  the  reason  of  his  addition,  in  this  in- 
stance, to  the  statement  of  Paul. 

The  miracle  which  Luke  narrates  in  this 
connection  is  the  reproduction,  with  extra 
embellishments,  of  Paul's  pretension  (II 
Cor.  xii,  1)  to  have  been  in  the  third  heaven 
or  in  Paradise.  Knowing  the  precise  na- 
ture of  this  miracle,  we  also  know  that 
Paul  undoubtedly,  like  the  Rabbis  Akiba, 


CHRISTIANITY.  427 

Joshua,  Ben  Azzai,  and  Ben  Zoma,  main- 
tained to  have  been  in  Paradise,,  whether 
in  after  times  he  believed  it  or  did  not.  In 
his  epistle  (II  Cor.  xii)  he  brings  this  Para- 
dise story  in  close  connection  with  Damas- 
cus and  his  start  as  a  Christian  (ibid,  xi, 
the  close.)  Therefore  in  the  inventive  soul 
of  Luke  this  grew  into  another  miracle, 
which  he  tells  thus  :  Paul  filled  with  hatred 
toward  the  Nazarenes,  persecuted  them 
every- where,  and  went  even  to  Damascus 
with  letters  from  the  high  priest  and  the 
Sanhedrin,  to  arrest  the  Christians  of 
Damascus  and  to  bring  them  in  chains  to 
Jerusalem.  This  portion  of  the  story  bears 
the  fictitious  character  on  its  very  face. 
There  were  no  Christians  in  Damascus  at 
that  early  period,  there  were  none  any- 
where outside  of  Palestine,  or  else  Paul  or 
at  least  the  author  of  "  The  Acts"  himself 
must  have  mentioned  them  somewhere  or 
somehow  to  the  glory  of  the  older  apostles. 
In  the  second  place,  how  can  one  imagine 
that  the  high  priest  and  Sanhedrin  of  Jeru- 
salem, whose  power  was  reduced  at  home 
to  zero  almost,  could  exercise  jurisdiction 
in  a  foreign  country  over  the  persons  of  a 
king's  subjects?  In  the  third  place,  if  Paul 
had  gone  with  such  a  commission  to  Da- 
mascus, there  is  not  the  least  cause  why  he 
should  not  have  said  so.  This  was  evi- 
dently pat  in  to miraculize  the  miracle.  On 
the  way,  the  narrative  continues,  Jesus  ap- 
peared to  Paul  in  an  extraordinary  vision 
and  converted  his  mind,  so  that  the  fierce 

&i 


428  ORIGIN  OF 

persecutor  was  stricken  with  blindness, 
and  came  tremblingly  and  sick  to  Damas- 
cus, where  one  Ananias  brought  him  the 
appointment  of  Jesus  lt  to  bear  my  name 
before  the  Gentiles  and  kings  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,"  together  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  restoration  of  his  eye-sight  and 
his  health. 

The  air-castles  which  Mr.  Renan  builds 
on  this  story,  without  any  historical  basis, 
are  truly  amusing.  Pretensions  like  these 
were,  indeed,  very  common  in  that  age. 
Many  of  the  mystic  rabbis  narrate  that  the 
prophet  Elijah  came  to  them,  answered 
their  queries,  communicated  to  them  what 
God  had  said  on  various  occasions,  and  held 
familiar  conversations  with  them,  although 
Elijah  occupied  the  same  position  in  heaven, 
according  to  the  mystic  rabbis,  which 
Jesus  did  according  to  Paul.  Therefore 

!Paul  might  have  said  or  believed  that  Jesus 
appeared  to  him,  as  the  mystic  rabbis  did 
concerning  Elijah.  But  Paul  did  not  say 
it,  in  speaking  of  the  visions  and  revela- 
tions which  he  had  (I  Cor.  xii.)  The  miracle 
begins  with  "  a  light  from  heaven,"  which 
suddenly  shone  round  Paul.  This,  a  child 
can  see,  is  an  imitation  of  the  fire  in  the 
bush  which  Moses  saw,  when  God  first  ap- 
peared to  him.  Moses  hid  his  face,  "  For 
he  was  afraid  to  look  up  to  God,"  and 
precisely  so,  did  Paul,  "  He  fell  to 
the  earth."  God  called  twice  "  Moses, 
Moses!"  so  did  Jesus  call  twice  "Paul, 
Paul !"  It  is  the  same  scene  anxiously  imi- 


CHRISTIANITY.  429 

tated.  But  Paul  is  not  told  at  once  what 
Jesus  wants  him  to  do,  as  Moses  was.  "  Go 
to  the  city,"  says  Jesus,  "  and  it  shall  be 
told  thee  what  thou  must  do." 

Did  the  companions  of  Paul  see  this  fire, 
fall  to  the  earth,  and  hear  this  voice  as  Paul 
did  ?  The  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  who  tells 
this  stoi-y  three  times,  answers  thus  : 

1.  "And  the  men  which  journeyed  with 
him  (Paul)    stood    speechless,    hearing    a 
voice,   but  seeing  no  man,"  (Acts  ix,  7) ; 
hence  they  saw  no  light  from  heaven,  or 
else  they  must  have  fallen  to  the  earth  like 
Paul,  remained  standing,  and  heard  a  voice, 
without  knowing  what  it  was. 

2.  "And  they  that  were  with  me,"  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts "   has  Paul  himself 
say,  "  saw  indeed  the  light,  and  were  afraid  ; 
but  they  heard  not  the  voice  of  Him  that 
spake  to  me."    (Acts  xxii,  9;  ibid,  xxvi, 
14.)    Which  of  the  two  statements  is  true  ? 
Did  they  hear  or  did  they  not  ?    Did  they 
see  or  did  they  not  ?    None  is  true,  we  say, 
and  so  Luke  must  have  believed,  or  else  he 
could  not  contradict  himself. 

Paul  rises  blind  and  terrified,  not  indeed 
as  a  punishment  for  his   former  misdeeds, 
the  God  of  Luke  punishes  only  those  who 
believe  not  in  Christ;   he  must  be  blind' 
for  two  specific  reasons : 

1.  Balaam  also,  when  God  spoke  to  him, 
fell  on  the  earth  and  was  blind  in  one  or 
both  eyes,  as  then  the  story  was  told,* 

*8ee£fiphri  to  Nnrahfrs  xxiv,  ",  4,  Kaxhi  anrt   ffach- 
monides  ibid. 


430  OlUGIJN    OF 

although   he  was    the    greatest    prophet  ; 
therefore  Paul  could  not  escape  this  misery. 

2.  Pie  had  to  come  blind  to  Damascus,  in 
order  that  Ananias  could  heal  him,  bring 
him  the  Holy  Ghost  and  his  commission 
from  Jesus,  so  that  Paul  be  not  altogether 
original  and  independent  of  all  those  who 
were  Christians  before  him.  Unfortunately, 
however,  Paul  contradicts  this,  and  main- 
tains that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  any 
man  in  receiving  his  Gospel  (Galat.  i,  12.) 
He  never  mentions  Ananias,  his  great  bene- 
factor, which  he  must  have  done,  if  there 
was  any  truth  in  the  matter. 

That  this  story  is  fictitious,  based  upon 
Paul's  Paradise  story,  can  hardly  be 
doubted.  It  is  told  well,  in  the  spirit  of 
that  age,  like  all  the  Elijah  stories  in  the 
Talmud,  and  in  imitation  of  Scriptural 
scenes  and  passages.  But  the  moral  of 
the  story  is  miserable.  Like  the  prudent 
king  of  a  constitutional  country,  Jesus 
takes  the  leader  of  the  opposition  into  his 
cabinet;  God  takes  an  abject  fanatic  who 
is  guilty  of  the  most  outrageous  crimes, 
and  on  a  sudden  makes  of  him  an  apostle 
and  a  prophet;  the  benighted  fanatic  is 
seized  by  an  unjust  God,  and  elevated  high 
above  the  best  and  most  pious  of  his  age. 
This  is  a  nugatory  doctrine  to  encourage 
crime  aud  unbelief.  If  God  chose  the  blood- 
thirsty Paul  to  be  His  special  messenger 
on  earth,  why  should  he  not  deign  one  of 
these  days  to  pick  out  one  of  the  inmates 
of  a  penitentiary  and  make  a  demi-god  of 


CHRISTIANITY.  431 

him  ?  Is  it  not  better  to  be  a  vulgar  crim- 
inal than  a  righteous  man,  if  the  chances 
of  the  former  are  so  much  better  before 
God? 

The  facts  in  the  case,  however,  appear  to 
be  that  the  whole  story  is  not  true  ;  that 
Luke  had  a  poor  conception  of  morals* 
that  Paul  in  writing  to  his  Gentile  congre. 
gations  overdid  his  own  wickedness  in  per- 
secuting the  Christians  in  former  days,  in 
order  to  encourage  the  sinful  heathens  to 
hope  in  God's  mercy ;  and  that  Paul,  after 
having  come  back  from  Paradise  with  his 
three  colleagues,  went  to  Damascus  and 
there  liegan  to  preach  Christianity,  as  he 
understood  and  shaped  it.  How  long  Paul 
roamed  about  the  deserts  and  solitary 
wilds,  after  he  had  become  subject  to  that 
dreadful  and  self-destructive  practice  of  the 
mystic  Pharisees,  described  in  the  ninth 
chapter  of  this  book,  till  he  concentrated 
his  mind  upon  the  Gospel  which  he  resolved 
to  preach  among  the  Gentiles— it  is  impos- 
sible now  to  tell.  Transitions,  with  charac- 
ters like  Paul,  are  often  sudden  and  violent, 
so  that  the  very  extremes  meet  in  a  mo- 
ment. Thus  much,  however,  is  certain  that 
his  first  attempt  at  the  conversion  of  the 
heathens  proved  abortive,  so  that  he  nar- 
rowly escaped  the  governor's  soldiers  at 
Damascus.  This  failure,  most  likely,  con- 
vinced Paul  of  his  inadequate  preparation 
for  so  important  a  task.  He  was  young,zeal  - 
ous  and  visionary,  but  he  had  not  studied 
the  situation  and  the  means.  Therefore  he 


432  ORIGIN  OF 

went  into  Arabia  and  spent  there  three 
years,  where  he  did  nothing  that  was 
handed  down  to  posterity.  He  prepared 
himself  for  his  mission.  After  he  was  fully 
prepared  and  had  laid  out  his  plan  of  ac- 
tion, he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  and  remained 
with  Peter  fifteen  days.  He  saw  also  James, 
the  brother  of  Jesus,  but  none  else  of  the 
apostles.  He  may  have  come  to  some  un- 
derstanding with  Peter  about  his  plan  of 
action  ;  but  it  must  all  have  been  of  a  pri- 
vate nature,  nothing  of  which  has  reached 
posterity. 

This  is  by  no  means  marvelous  enough 
for  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  nor  did  it 
suit  him  that  Paul  acted  independently; 
therefore  he  undertook  to  contradict 
Paul's  own  statement  about  himself.  He 
brings  Paul  from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem, 
"  and  he  essayed  to  join  himself  to  the  dis- 
ciples "  who  believed  not  that  he  was  a  dis- 
ciple, until  finally  Barnabas  brought  him 
to  the  apostles  and  united  him  with  them, 
so  that  he  was  with  them  coming  and  going 
out  at  Jerusalem.  So  Luke  reconciles  once 
more  Paul  and  the  apostles  by  Barnabas, 
which  is  not  true,  but  it  is  good  policy. 
On  this  occasion  he  administers  another 
blow  on  the  Jews,  the  Grecians  are  this 
time  the  rogues,  who  went  about  to  slay 
Paul,  but  the  disciples  discovered  it  in  time, 
and  led  Paul  away  by  Cesarea  to  Tarsus. 
Before  that,  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  »  let 
Paul  state  that  while  praying  in  the  temple 
he  "  was  in  a  trance ;"  he  saw  Jesus  who 


CHRISTIANITY.  433 

told  hiin  to  leave  Jerusalem  and  to  go  to 
the  Gentiles,  (xxii,  17.)  Thus  the  depart- 
ure of  Paul  from  Jerusalem  was  not  on  ac- 
count of  the  Grecian  Jews  who  intended  to 
slay  him,  as  he  says  in  the  ninth  chapter; . 
it  was  by  command  of  Jesus.  It  is  certain 
that  not  one  word  of  all  that  is  true,  if  Paul 
told  the  truth  about  himself;  but  Luke 
reaches  his  object,  he  brings  Paul  and  the 
apostles  in  perfect  harmony  and  adminis- 
ters some  blows  at  the  Jews  of  Damascus 
and  of  Jerusalem.  The  reader,  however, 
must  not  infer  from  this  that  the  author  of 
"  The  Acts  "  never  tells  the  truth;  he  does, 
indeed,  invent  anything  almost  to  suit  his 
conciliation  policy,  nevertheless  he  some- 
times states  the  truth.  Besides  he  is  very 
consistent,  for  he  invents  a  number  of 
stories,  visions,  miracles,  angels,  speeches, 
meetings  and  successes,  as  we  shall  see  be- 
low, all  of  which  suit  his  policy  exactly, 
to  which  he  adheres  to  the  last. 

Nothing  could  give  Luke  more  trouble 
than  the  difference  of  opinion  on  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles,  which  existed 
among  the  apostles  with  Paul  on  the  one 
side,  Peter  and  James  on  the  other.  The 
thing  itself,  the  conversion  of  Gentiles,  was 
obnoxious  to  the  apostles,  besides  the  ex- 
citing controversy  on  the  law  and  circum- 
cision. The  Jew  Christians  accused  Paul 
and  his  friends  to  be  enemies  of  the  law 
and  the  Hebrew  people,  while  Paul  charges 
the  apostles  and  the  Jew  Christians  with  an 
entire  miscomprehension  of  the  salvation 


434  ORIGIN  OF 

scheme.  The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  must 
begin  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  by  the 
agency  of  Peter  and  James,  for  the  justifi- 
cation of  Paul.  He  begins  with  the  con- 
version of  the  Samaritans  who  were  half 
Jews  anyhow,  and  narrates  that  Philip,  in 
the  persecution  subsequent  to  Stephen's 
death,  went  to  Samaria,  preached  in  that 
city,  drove  out  devils,  performed  sundry 
miracles,  and  converted  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  of  Samaria.  The  apostles  are 
informed  that  "all  Samaria,"  city  and  coun- 
try, was  converted,  hastened  thither,  viz: 
Peter  and  John,  to  complete  the  work  and 
furnish  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost.  ( A  cts  viii, 
1  to  25.)  Thus  Luke  satisfies  his  own  pre- 
dilection for  the  Samaritans,  both  in  the 
Acts  and  his  Gospel,  and  the  conversion  of 
Gentiles  is  began  on  these  half  Jews,  with 
the  full  consent  of  the  apostles. 

None  mentions  this  conversion,  no  trace 
of  it  is  left  anywhere.  Still  the  tone  of  the 
narrative  in  the  Acts  suggests  the  author's 
opinion  that  all  or  nearly  all  Samaritans 
were  converted,  and  this  unprecedented 
success  left  no  trace  anywhere.  The  Sa- 
maritans themselves*  do  not  mention  this 
conversion ;  on  the  contrary,  they  narrate 
that  they  remained  faithful  to  their  religion, 
also  during  the  reign  of  terror  under  the 
Emperor  Hadrian.  History  informs  us 
that  the  Samaritans  were  a  strong  people 
during  the  reign  of  Zeno  (474  to  491)  and 
that  they  then  killed  all  the  Christians 

*8ee  Samaritan  Joshua,  Chapt.  47. 


CHRISTIANITY.  435 

(Passover  484.)  This  hatred  of  the  Samari- 
tans against  the  Christians  continued  to  the 
year  529,  when  the  excommunicated  Chris- 
tians assisted  them  in  the  massacre  of  the 
Christians  of  Beth  Sheon  and  Sycheui.  All 
this  shows  that  the  Samaritans  were  not 
converted  by  Philip,  nor  is  any  Christian 
congregation  mentioned  in.  Samaria  before 
the  third  century.! 

It  must  not  be  forgotten,  although  Jesus, 
according  to  Matthew,  charged  his  disciples, 
"  Go  into  no  city  of  the  Samaritans,"  which 
shows  no  great  friendship  for  them,  and 
neither  Mark  nor  Matthew  has  anything 
to  say  about  them  ;  Luke,  in  his  Gospel, 
has  several  highly  favorable  notices  of 
them.§  John,  also,  who  in  time  follows 
after  Luke,  sympathizes  with  the  Samari- 
tans. Unfortunately,  however,  he  shows 
two  essential  points :  1.  That  he  took  hia 
story  of  the  Samaritans  (John  iv,  1)  from 
the  storj'  of  Philip  in  the  Acts  (viii) ;  and 
2.  that  he  did  not  consider  it  true,  for  he 
tells  precisely  of  Jesus  and  the  conversion 
of  the  Samaritans,  what  "The  Acts"  tell 
of  Philip  in  the  same  connection.  Jesus, 
like  Philip,  conies  "  into  a  city  of  Samaria," 
of  which  John  gives  the  name  Sychar  or 
Sychem,  the  ancient  capital.  Jesus,  like 
Philip,  comes  to  Samaria  a  fugitive  from 
Jerusalem.  The  next  portion  of  John's 
story,  Jesus  asking  a  drink  of  a  Samaritan 

tVide  Introductio  in  librum  Talmudicum  de  Sa- 
maritanlbus— R.  Kirchheim. 
JLuke  ix,  51 ;  x,  30 ;  xvil,  12. 


436  ORIGIN  OF 

woman,  is  taken  almost  literally  from 
Luke's  first  Samaritan  story.  Then  John 
has  "many  Samaritans  "  converted  to  be- 
lieve in  Jesus  who  prophesies  their  entire 
conversion,exactly  as  Luke  says,Philip  did, 
who  converted  many  Samaritans,  amt  the 
apostles  after  him  converted  the  rest. 

As  it  is  evidently  the  object  of  John  in 
telling  the  Samaritaa  story,  to  have  Jesus 
himself  begin  their  conversion,  in  order  to 
overcome  the  prejudices  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  against  them;  so  it  is  Luke's 
object,  in  beginning  their  conversion  un- 
der Philip  and  the  apostles,  to  carve  out  a 
gradual  transition  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  began  by  the  apostles  before  Paul. 
Neither  John  nor  Luke  could  have  con- 
sidered the  story  true,  as  they  must  have 
known  the  small  number  of  Samaritan 
Christians  even  in  the  second  century. 
Nevertheless  each  had  an  object  to  reach, 
and  a  story  was  easily  found  to  suit  the 
occasion. 

The  conversion  of  the  Samaritans,  under 
the  authority  and  co-operation  of  the  apos- 
tles, is  the  viaduct  for  Luke  to  lead  to  the 
conversion  of  uncircumcised  persons. 
Therefore  the  same  Philip  who  wrought 
miracles,  drove  out  unclean  spirits,  and 
healed  the  sick  by  the  scores,  was  directed 
by  an  angel  to  go  to  the  south,  toward 
Gaza.**  On  the  way  he  meets  the  treasurer 

**The  author  of  the  Acts  viii,  26,  explains  the  word 
'  Gaza,  "which  is  desert, "to  show  that  he  understood 
very  little  Hebrew,  for  Oath,  as  is  the  Hebrew  name 
of  Gaza,  means  a  wine  press,  and  that  he  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  Geography  of  Judea,  for  Gaza  is  not  south 
of  Jerusalem ;  it  is  East— south-east. 


CHRISTIANITY.  437 

of  Condace,  Queen  of  Ethiopia.  This  man 
had  been  in  Jerusalem  "for  to  worship," 
and  on  returning  he  sat  in  his  chariot  and 
read  "Isaiah,  the  prophet."  Philip  con- 
verted this  important  man  from  Ethiopia, 
merely  by  baptism,  not  by  circumcision. 
Still  he  was  no  Jew,  or  else  he  must  have 
understood  something  about  Isaiah  which 
he  said  to  Philip,  he  did  not.  The  gist  of 
the  story  is,  that  Philip,  guided  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  converted  a  devout  heathen  to 
Christianity  without  circumcision.  The 
story  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  early  spread 
of  Christianity  in  Abyssinia,  or  it  may  be 
altogether  fictitious,  and  at  that  time  Ethio- 
pia was  the  land  of  fables ;  the  object  of 
the  narrator  is  evident,  it  is  a  step  from  the 
conversion  of  the  Samaritans  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, the  devout  heathen  who  had  gone  all 
the  way  from  Ethiopia  to  Jerusalem  to 
worship  God,  follows  after  the  circumcised 
Samaritans,  so  that  now  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles  may  follow. 

This  is  actually  the  case,  for  now  follows 
the  conversion  of  Paul,  who,  if  Luke  tells 
the  truth  in  the  matter,  and  here  he  tallies 
with  Paul's  statements,  was  informed  by 
Jesus  himself  that  "  He  is  a  chosen  vessel 
unto  me  to  bear  my  name  before  the  Gen- 
tiles," (Acts  ix,  16,)  who  was  sent  by  Jesus 
"  unto  the  Gentiles,"  (ibid,  xxii,  21.)  Still 
Paul  must  not  have  done  s©  on  his  own  ac- 
count, not  even  by  command  of  Jesus  or 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  older  apostles  must 
have  set  the  precedent  and  must  have  ap- 


438  ORIGIN  OF 

pointed  him  to  his  mission,  as  they  have 
been  appointed  by  Jesus  who  has  given 
them  the  precedents.  Therefore  Peter  must 
make  the  beginning.  He  must  first  con  vert 
Gentiles,  and  he  must  lirst  decide  on  the 
subject  with  the  consent,  of  course,  of  all 
his  colleagues.  After  Philip,  who  was  no 
apostle,  had  wrought  so  many  astonishing 
miracles,  it  can  not  be  expected  of  Luke 
that  he  tell  the  next  story  in  a  plain  way; 
Peter  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  outdo 
Philip  in  miracles  as  in  the  work  of  con- 
version. Therefore  Peter  turns  up  again 
in  Lydda  as  a  quack  doctor,  in  our  days 
one  of  the  most  despicable  occupations  ; 
but  Peter  healed  a  man,  Eneas,  who 
was  sick  abed  for  eight  years,  stricken 
with  the  palsy,  and  he  did  it  merely  by 
calling  on  him  in  the  name  of  Jesus  to  rise 
from  his  bed.  "And  all  that  dwelt  in  Lydda 
and  Saron  saw  him  and  turned  to  the  Lord." 
So  the  people  of  two  cities  were  converted, 
not  by  any  argument,  it  was  done  much 
quicker  by  a  miracle.  The  only  mistake 
in  this  story  is,  it  is  not  true ;  for  Lydda 
was  for  many  years  after  that  a  celebrated 
rabbinical  academy  with  one  of  the  largest 
synagogues  in  Judea,  and  played  a  promi- 
nent part  in  Jewish  matters  in  the  war 
agaist  Hadrian.  The  "Sages  of  Lydda,' 
iV?  *c:>n  sire  celebrated  in  the  Talmud  for  cen- 
turies after  Peter.  Hence  not  u  all  that 
dwelt  in  Lydda  "  were  converted.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  any  were  as  long  as  Beter 
wrought  a  miracle.  This  being  too  small, 


CHRISTIANITY.  439 

Luke  transports  Peter  to  Joppa.  There  be 
must  perform  in  an  upper  chamber,  where 
one  Tabitha  is  lying  dead,  and  he,  saying 
44  Tabitha,  rise,"  reclaimed  her  from  death 
to  life.  This,  as  a  matter  of  course,  was 
known  "  throughout  all  Joppa  and  many 
believed  in  the  Lord."  Having  thus  tallied 
miracles  between  Peter  and  Paul,  to  show 
that  one  was  as  great  as  the  other,  and 
Peter  was  so  much  greater  than  Philip,  the 
author  of  "  The  Acts  "  returns  to  his  main 
object,  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
tells  the  story  about  Cornelius,  the  cen- 
turion, (x,  1.) 

The  story  runs  thus :  Cornelius,  the  Ro- 
man commander  of  the  Italian  band  in 
Cesarea,  a  pious  and  charitable  man,  as  al- 
most all  the  Romans  of  *'  The  Acts  "  are, 
more  or  less,  has  a  vision.  An  angel  ap- 
pears to  him,  and  commands  him  to  send 
for  Peter.  This  is  quite  an  intelligent  an- 
gel, for  he  describes  minutely  and  exactly 
all  about  Peter,  so  that  Cornelius  could  not 
help  finding  him.  This  angel  is  the  proof 
that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  or- 
dained from  on  high.  Cornelius,  of  course, 
obeys,  and  sends  two  messengers  for  Peter. 

Next  day  Peter  has  a  peculiar  whim  to 
ascend  the  house-top  and  "  to  pray  about 
the  sixth  hour,"  while  all  Jews  prayed 
morning  and  evening.  Peter  got  very 
hungry,  and  having  nothing  to  eat,  he  fell 
into  a  trance,  as  it  was  usual  among  mys- 
tics in  those  days,  to  fall  into  a  trance  after 
having  fasted  long  enough.  This  trance, 


440  ORIGIN  OF 

however,  is  an  imitation  of  Paul's  sojourn 
in  Paradise  to  tally  miracles.  Peter  in  a 
trance  sees  heaven  open,  and  coming  down 
in  a  great  sheet,  knit  at  the  four  corners, 
"  all  manner  of  four-tooted  beasts  of  the 
earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things, 
and  fowls  of  the  air."  He  was  called  upon 
to  kill  and  eat ;  but  he  refused,  in  the  words 
of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel,  to  eat  things  com- 
mon or  unclean.  The  voice  instructed  him, 
"  What  God  has  cleansed  that  call  not  thou 
common."  The  vision  vanished,  the  men 
of  Cornelius  arrived,  and  Peter  with  others 
follow  them  to  Cesarea.  Cornelius  on  be- 
holding Peter  "  fell  down  at  his  feet  and 
worshiped  him."  Although  "he  feared 
God  with  all  his  house,"  he  nevertheless 
worshiped  a  man.  Peter  could  not  stand 
that,  and  informed  the  centurion  "I  my- 
self am  a  man,"  which  he  might  have 
known,  had  he  used  his  eyes  right;  but  Luke 
wants  his  readers  to  know  that  Peter  was 
worshiped  and  refused  the  honor.  Cor- 
nelius repeats  the  angel  story,  and  then 
Peter  seizes  the  opportunity  to  declare  that 
God  himself  has  pronounced  in  favor  of 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  Peter's 
speech  brings  down  the  Holy  Ghost  on  his 
whole  audience,  so  that  the  Jews  present 
were  astonished,  "  Because  that  on  the 
Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard  them 
speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify  God." 
So  Luke  has  commenced  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles  by  Peter  with  the  special 


CHRISTIANITY.  441 

sanction  from  on  high  by  an  angel  and  a 
vision.  To  make  out  his  case  strong 
enough,  Luke  introduces  Jewish  witnesses. 

The  story  has  many  weak  points.  It  is 
an  imitation  of  Matthew's  story  of  the 
centurion  of  Capernaum  (Matthew  viii,  5) 
of  whom  John  (iv,  46)  made  a  nobleman  of 
Capernaum,  changing  also  Matthew's  ser- 
vant of  the  centurion  into  the  son  of  the 
nobleman.  Both  the  centurion  of  Matthew 
and  the  nobleman  of  John  are  converted, 
because  Jesus  bj'  his  command  healed  the 
servant  of  the  former  or  the  son  of  the  lat- 
ter. This  story  was  enlarged,  adapted  to 
the  circumstances,  and  given  to  Peter. 
Matthew's  centurion  said  to  Jesus,  "  Lord, 
I  am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst  come 
unto  my  roof."  This  shows  meekness  on 
the  part  of  the  centurion,  and  his  venera- 
tion for  Jesus.  But  Luke  understands  this 
to  signify  that  the  Jew  was  prohibited  to 
associate  with  Gentiles,  and  he  must  pro- 
duce Peter's  vision  at  Joppa,  and  let  him 
say  to  Cornelius  :  "Ye  know  how  that  it  is 
an  unlawful  thing  for  a  man  that  is  a  Jew 
to  keep  company,  or  come  unto  one  of 
another  nation  ;  but  God  hath  showed  me 
(by  that  vision)  that  I  should  not  call  any 
man  common  or  unclean."  John  goes  a 
step  beyond  this,  and  extends  this  unright- 
eous law  also  to  the  Samaritans  (John  iv,  9.) 

This  is  the  second  weak  point  of  the 
story.  No  such  law  ever  existed  in  Israel. 
How  could  it  exist  among  the  dispersed 
Israelites?  How  could  it  exist  among 


442  ORIGIN  OF 

commercial  men,  and  there  was  great  trade 
in  Judea?  The  prohibition  of  intermar- 
riage and  eating  animal  meat  with  heath- 
ens, was,  in  aftertimes,  extended  to  a  prohi- 
bition of  drinking  of  their  wine  and  eating 
of  their  bread  and  cheese ;  but  there  it 
stopped.  Such  an  unreasonable  and  im- 
practicable law  existed  in  the  brains  of 
Luke  only,  not,  indeed,  in  Peter  or  any 
other  Jew. 

This  story  says  that  neither  Jesus  nor 
the  apostles,  previous  to  this  vision  of 
Peter,  had  an  idea  of  converting  Gentiles, 
because,  as  Luke  thinks,  they  considered 
it  unlawful  "  to  come  unto  one  of  another 
nation,"  or  to  "  keep  company  "  with  him. 
Whatever  the  Gospels  state  about  Jesus 
having  charged  his  disciples  to  go  and  con- 
vert all  the  world,  and  whatever  theologi- 
cal writers  have  declared  on  this  subject 
— this  story  flatly  contradicts  the  entire 
statements,  theories  and  inductions. 

But  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  must 
be  sanctioned  by  a  synod,  by  the  Sanhed- 
rin  of  the  apostles,  previous  to  the  labors 
of  Paul.  Therefore  (Acts  xi,  1)  the  apostles 
and  brethren  in  Judea  take  the  alarm  that 
Peter  converted  Gentiles  and  ate  with 
them.  But  Peter  rehearsed  the  whole  pro- 
ceedings to  them,  and  they  at  last  agreed 
to  this,  "  Then  hath  God,  also  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, granted  repentance  unto  life."  So 
the  synod  was  agreed  that  although  here- 
tofore no  one  had  thought  of  converting 


CHRISTIANITY.  443 

the  Gentiles,  it  was  now  (then)  lawful  to 
do  it. 

This  synod  depends  on  the  former  story, 
If  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  is  true,  the 
synod  might  be.  But  the  Cornelius  story, 
on  account  of  the  miracles  and  the  two 
weak  points,  foeing  rather  doubtful ;  the 
synod  is  Still  more  so.  It  does  not  at  all 
appear  likely  that  Peter  ate  with  the  Gen- 
tiles and  confessed  it  in  Jerusalem,  when 
afterward  in  Antioch  he  would  not  do  it, 
out  of  fear  for  the  messengers  of  James. 
Besides  there  is  another  query.  If  Cor- 
nelius was  circumcised,  there  was  nothing 
left  to  discuss  about,  as  it  was  perfectly 
lawful,  and  thousands  besides  the  kings 
Munabaz  and  Izatez  were  circumcised  and 
accepted  into  the  covenant.  If  he  was  not, 
this  very  point  must  have  been  discussed, 
as  indeed  it  was  done  at  a  future  synod, 
and  Peter  would  have  first  been  charged 
with  accepting  uncircumcised  proselytes. 
Still  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  so  far  has 
reached  his  object,  the  conversion  of  Gen- 
tiles was  sanctioned  by  a  synod,  previous 
to  the  public  activity  of  Paul.  True  or  not, 
it  matters  little,  it  serves  the  conciliation 
policy,  to  heal  the  breach  between  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  and  the  Jew  Christians. 

The  stage  being  prepared,  the  next  busi- 
ness is  to  introduce  Paul  on  it.  This  is 
done  in  the  following  manner.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  persecution,  some  disciples 
had  reached  Antioch  and  preached  to  the 

Jews.      Some     Grecian     Jews,     however, 

29* 


444  ORIGIN  OF 

preached  also  to  the  Gentiles  of  Antioch, 
m  which  they  were  successful.  Tidings 
thereof  having  reached  the  apostles  in  Jeru- 
salem, they  sent  Barnabas  to  Antioch  to 
continue  the  work.  Barnabas  then  went 
to  Tarsus  and  brought  Paul  to  Antioch,  to 
assist  him  in  his  mission  labors,  and  they 
worked  there  one  year.  In  Autioch  the  new 
sect  was  called  the  Christian.  The  elders 
of  Antioch  sent  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  Jeru- 
salem with  gifts  for  the  congregation.  On 
returning  to  Antioch,  Barnabas  and  Paul 
were  sent  to  the  Gentiles  by  the  prophets 
and  teachers  of  Antioch  and  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  (Acts  xiii,  1.) 

According  to  the  statements  of  the  author 
of  "  The  Acts,"  Paul  does  nothing  of  his 
own  account.  He  is  introduced  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  Ananias  of  Damascus,  to 
the  apostles  right  after  that  by  Barnabas, 
to  Antioch  by  the  same,  and  is  sent  from 
Antioch  on  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  as 
an  assistant  to  Barnabas,  by  the  prophets 
and  teachers  of  Antioch,  after  he  had  been 
sent  by  them  to  Jerusalem.  All  this  Paul 
consistently  and  emphatically  denies.  He 
went  not  to  Jerusalem  and  Tarsus,  after 
his  conversion,  but  to  Arabia,  where  he  re- 
mained three  years.  He  was  not  intro- 
duced to  the  apostles  or  the  congregation 
and  saw  none  except,  after  three  years, 
Peter  and  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus.  He 
received  no  instructions  of  anybody,  con- 
sulted none,  was  sent  by  nobody,  and 
clai  ins  to  have  done  and  said  everything 


CHRISTIANITY.  445 

without  the  least  assistance  from  any  man. 
Those  who  traveled  and  worked  with  him 
always  appear  under  his  charge.  His 
Gospel  is  not  theirs,  his  doctrines  are  not 
their  doctrines.  He  shaped  his  Gospel  and 
his  doctrines  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. At  the  close  of  his  journeys,  after 
fourteen  years,  the  congregation  in  Jerusa- 
lem with  the  apostles  were  still  opposed  to 
him,  except  Peter,  James  and  John,  who 
acknowledged  him  as  the  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  claiming  for  themselves  the  apos- 
tleship  to  the  Hebrews.  These  difficulties 
of  Paul  with  the  original  disciples,  which 
gave  rise  to  tho  epistles  of  Paul,  could  not 
have  existed,  if  the  conversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles had  been  commenced  by  Peter  and 
sanctioned  by  a  synod  previous  to  Paul's 
public  life.  The  reader  being  under  obli- 
gation to  reject  either  Paul's  statements 
about  himself  and  his  mission,  or  those 
made  by  the  author  of  "The  Acts,"  can 
only  decide  in  favor  of  the  epistles.  There- 
fore Paul  is  the  author  of  Christianity 
which  he  named  in  Antioch  and  carried 
over  a  vast  area  of  land  in  the  Roman 
empire.  The  religion  of  Jesus  and  his 
immediate  disciples  ended  with  the  excom- 
munication of  the  Jewish  Christian  sects. 
Nothing  remained  of  it,  except  what  Paul 
remodelled  for  the  Gentiles  and  some  anec- 
dotes and  sentences  in  the  Synoptics,  which 
to  distinguish  from  the  later  additions  is  al- 
most an  impossibility. 
The  author  of  "  The  Acts"  beginning 


446  ORIGIN  OF 

the  story  at  the  end  has  a  large  congrega- 
tion in  Jerusalem,  shortly  after  the  cruci- 
fixion, of  which  he  finally  rids  himself  by 
ingenious  contrivances.  He  invents  perse- 
cutions, trials,  rows,*  speeches,  to  get  the 
congregation  out  of  Jerusalem.  He  must 
dispose  in  one  way  or  another  of  the  thou- 
sands of  believers  in  that  city.  But  now 
he  has  written  himself  into  the  same  di- 
lemma. If  Peter  and  Philip  had  done 
such  great  work  in  the  start,  before  Paul 
appeared  in  the  arena,  why  has  he  nothing 
more  to  tell  about  them?  Here  another 
persecution  must  help  him  out  of  the  di- 
lemma. (Acts  xii.)  Herod,  the  king, 
vexed  the  church,  killed  James,  the  brother 
of  John,  and  Peter  escapes  by  a  most  won- 
derful wonder.  He  found  the  names  ready 
made  in  Josephus  (Atiquities  xx,  v,  2;) 
James  and  Simon  (or  Peter)  the  sons  of 
Judas  of  Galilee,  who  were  crucified  by 
order  of  Tiberius  Alexander.  Having  con- 
sulted Josephus  in  making  the  speech  of 
Gauiliel,  and  using  there  the  name  of 
Theudas,  he  stumbled  almost  over  these 
two  names,  which  are  in  the  same  para- 
graph of  Josephus.  Herod  also  being- 
mentioned  in  the  same  paragraph,  the  story 
was  made  in  a  moment,  and  the  flight  of 
Peter  was  accounted  for  in  the  more  con- 
venient way  of  a  miracle.  "And  be  departed 
and  went  into  another  place  ;"  so  he  dis- 
poses of  Peter.  The  Hol>  Ghost  and  the 
angels  had  nothing  to  say  this  time.  This 
left  Paul  the  principal  actor  in  the  great 


CHRISTIANITY.  447 

drama.  Those  left  in  Jerusalem  under 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  were  satisfied 
with  the  money  which  Paul  collected  for 
them,  (Galat.  ii,  10)  and  were  not  prepared 
to  enter  with  Paul  upon  the  arena  of  pub- 
lic discussion.  Therefore,  however  radi- 
cally tney  (ii tiered  with  Paul,  they  could 
not  efficiently  oppose  him,  and  so  he  re- 
mained master  of  the  situation. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  VOYAGES  OF  PAUL. 

Paul,  on  returning  from  Arabia,  re- 
mained for  a  time,  he  says  not  how  long, 
in  Damascus,  and  then  he  went  to  Antioch, 
where  he  met  with  decided  success  among 
the  Gentiles,  so  that  a  congregation  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles  was  organized,  whom  he  called 
Christians.  He  did  not  call  them  new  Is- 
raelites, new  Jerusalem  or  Any  other  name 
connecting  them  with  the  children  of  Israel 
and  their  outward  religion,  because  it  was 
from  the  start  his  intention  to  establish  a 
new  religion  on  the  ruins  of  Paganism. 
His  new  religion  was  an  abstract  of  Ju- 
daism connected  with  his  salvation  scheme, 
his  Gospel,  the  latter  being  intended  to  be 
the  bearer  of  the  former  for  the  time  being. 
The  main  point  of  his  Gospjl  being,  the 
Messiah  or  Christ  has  come,  he  could  call 
his  new  religion  Christianity  only,  signify- 
ing that  system  of  religion  which  flows 
from  the  doctrine  that  the  Messiah  has 
come. 

Three  j*ears  after  his  conversion,  he  went 


*448  ORIGIN  OF 

to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  and  stood  with 
him  fifteen  days.  He  may  have  gone  there 
in  company  with  Barnabas  with  contribu- 
tions from  the  new  congregation  of  Autioch 
to  the  apostolic  congregation;  on  this  oc- 
casion Barnabas  may  have  introduced  him 
to  Peter  ;  he  may  also  have  prayed  in  the 
temple,  as  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  main- 
tains he  had  done  at  a  previous  time.  But 
all  this  is  uncertain  and  immaterial  after 
we  know  that  he  had  his  own  Gospel,  and 
by  no  means  wished  to  learn  anything  of 
the  disciples  of  Jesus.  On  the  contrary,  it 
must  have  been  his  decided  intention  to 
huve  no  connec-tion  with  them  at  all,  as  he 
thus  could  announce  himself  to  the  Gen- 
tiles as  the  direct  messenger  from  God,  and 
was  not  under  the  obligation  to  struggle 
against  all  the  prejudices  which  the  heath- 
ens harbored  against  the  Jews  and  their 
law,  and  the  apostolic  congregation  was 
composed  of  Jews  only,  and  strictly  law- 
abiding  ones  at  that.  Peter  was  influenced 
by  Paul  in  after  days,  and  yielded  a  little 
from  his  Pharisean  orthodoxy;  but  James 
never  yielded  an  iota. 

Having  returned  from  Jerusalem  to  An- 
tioch,  Paul  in  company  with  Barnabas, 
started  out  on  his  hazardous  and  moment- 
ous mission  to  the  Gentiles,  to  shake  the 
tottering  fabric  of  Paganism,  and  to  lay  the 
foundation  to  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of 
mankind.  He  started  out  in  opposition  to 
all  existing  systems  of  religion,  declaring 
war  to  Heathenism,  war  to  the  entire  struc- 


CHRISTIANITY.  449 

ture  of  Judaism,  war  to  the  creed  of  his 
colleagues  in  Jerusalem  whose  master  he 
glorified,  with  no  resources  outside  of  him- 
self and  no  allies  beside  the  signs  of  the 
time.  He  could  not  count  much  upon  the 
aid  of  Barnabas,  who,  like  Peter,  James 
and  others  in  Jerusalem,  was  a  very  pious 
man  with  little  energy  or  genius,  who 
prayed  much  and  devoutly,  wrought  as 
many  miracles  as  he  knew  how,  and  was 
sure  to  be  saved.  The  author  of  "  The 
Acts"  himself,  who  was  quite  favorably 
impressed  with  the  saints  of  Jerusalem, 
must  have  hud  this  opinion  of  Barnabas, 
who,  sent  to  the  Gentiles  of  Antioch,  could 
do  nothing  with  them  without  Paul.  (Acts 
xi,  22  to  26.)  Paul  could  expect  of  him  all 
the  benefits  which  a  good  and  faithful 
traveling  companion  affords  among  stran- 
gers in  a  foreign  land  ;  he  could  not  expect 
more  of  him.  Bravely  he  laced  the  storm 
and  vanquished  its  fury.  After  a  lapse  of 
many  years  he  complains  bitterly  before 
the  Corinthians  (I  Cor.  iv,  9) : 

"  For  I  think  that  God  hath  set  forth  us 
the  apostles  last  as  it  were,  appointed  to 
death:  for  we  are  made  a  spectacle  unto 
the  world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men.  We 
are  fools  lor  Christ's  sake,  but  ye  are  wise 
in  Christ ;  we  are  weak,  but  yc  are  strong  ; 
ye  are  honorable,  but  we  are  despised.  Even 
unto  this  present  hour  we  both  hunger, 
and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  and  are  buffeted, 
and  have  no  certain  dwelling-place ;  and 
labor,  working  with  our  own  hands.  Being 
reviled,  we  bless ;  being  persecuted,  we 
suffer  it;  being  defamed,  we  entreat:  we 
are  made  as  the  filth  of  the  world,  and  are 


450  ORIGIN  OF 

the  off-scouring  of  all  things  unto  this  day. 
I  write  not  these  things  to  shame  you,  but 
as  my  beloved  sons  I  warn  you.  For  though 
ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ, 
yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers:  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the 
gospel." 

Again  he  tells  the  same  congregation  (II 
Corinthians  xi,  23): 

"Are  they  ministers  of  Christ?  (I  speak 
as  a  fool)  I  ani  more  ;  in  labors  more  abund- 
ant, in  stripes  above  measure,  in  prisons 
more  frequent,  in  deaths  oft.  Of  the  Jews 
five  times  received  I  forty  stripes  save  one. 
Thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I 
stoned,  thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night 
and  a  day  I  have  been  in  the  deep  ;  in  jour- 
neyings  often,  in  perils  of  waters,  in  perils 
of  robbers,  in  perils  by  mine  own  country- 
men, in  perils  by  tue  heathen,  in  perils  in 
the  city,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  perils 
in  the  sea,  in  perils  among  false  brethren  ; 
in  weariness  and  painfulnpss,  in  watchings 
often,  in  hunger  and  thirst,  in  fastings  often, 
in  cold  and  nakedness." 

How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  Alone  and 
unprotected  in  the  very  midst  of  heathens 
he  declared  Paganism  an  accursed  false- 
hood, all  heathens  a  band  of  unnatural 
criminals,  Judaism  abrogated,  all  that  was 
holy  and  dear  to  anybody  a  lie  and  a  crime  ; 
it  is  wonderful  enough  that  he  was  not  as- 
sassinated. 

It  is  true,  Paul  was  a  grievous  sinner,  he 
persecuted  persons  on  ace  junt  of  their  re- 
ligious belief;  but  he  suffered  for  it,  and 
sufferings  purified  him,  especially  as  he 
like  all  pious  Pharisees  rejoiced  in  his  suf- 
ferings as  being  his  very  means  of  elevation. 
"  Therefore  I  take  pleasure  in  infirmities, 


CHRISTIANITY.  451 

in  reproaches,  in  necessities,  in  persecu- 
tions, in  distresses  for  Christ's  sake:  for 
when  I  am  weak,  then  I  am  strong."* 
(II  Cor.  xii,  10.) 

He  sacrificed  himself  for  his  wickedness, 
and  devoted  his  life  to  a  great  cause.  This 
was  sufficient  sacrifice  for  all  the  sins  of  his 
earlier  days,  and  it  appears  they  were  not 
fe\v.  He  had  a  thorn  in  his  flesh  and  the 
messenger  of  Satan  buffet  ted  him.  (Ibid, 
xii,  7.) 

It  is  no  less  true  that  all  the  Jews  from 
Abraham  to  Paul  believed  in  the  final 
downfall  of  Heathenism  and  the  triumph 
of  truth  over  falsehood,  that  very  truth 
which  was  preserved  in  the  shrine  of  Israel. 
It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  Messianic 
speculations  which  were  entertained  at  that 
time,  and  the  progress  which  Judaism  had 
already  made  among  the  heathens,  con- 
siderably increased  and  strengthened  that 
faith.  But  Paul  did  that  which  others  be- 
lieved, that  it  would  come  to  pass.  They  be- 
lieved and  he  did.  They  con  verted  persons, 
and  he  converted  communities.  He  could 


*Coiiipare  to  numerous  passages  in  the  Talmud  on 
.13,1x0  p-no11  and  pno1  ~]'*y  p3>3H  and  especially 
"  It  is  said  of  those  who  are  put  to  shame  and  retal- 
iate not,  who  hear  themselves  reproached  and  make 
no  reply,  'And  his  friends  are  like  the  sun  rising  in 
his  power.'"  (Sabbath  88.)  Or  this:  "Those  who 
abase  the  mselves,  God  will  elevate;  and  thoae  who 
exalt  themselves,  God  will  debase,"  (Erubin  17  &; ; 
of  which  the  Kabbah  makes  this,  '•  My  debasement 
becomes  my  elevation,  and  my  exultation  becomes 
my  degradation." 


452  ORIGIN  OF 

not  expect  any  considerable  success  with 
the  ceremonial  law,  and  he  did  without  it,  a 
step  which  the  Pharisean  rabbis  fully  justi- 
fied without  carrying  it  into  practice.  They 
prophesied  it  for  the  future,  but  Paul  said 
that  future  had  come  already,  the  Messiah 
has  come,  the  ceremonial  law  is  abolished. 
He  went  too  far  into  broad  generalties,  but 
he  was  driven  to  it,  and  in  his  older  days 
he  fully  explained  that  it  was  the  cere- 
monial law  only  against  which  he  spoke. 

It  is  true,  Paul  went  only  to  such  coun- 
tries where  the  Jews  were  numerous  and 
naturalized,  and  Judaism  had  made  deep 
inroads  into  the  heathen  temples,  under- 
mined by  the  onward  march  of  Grecian 
literature,  philosophy  and  skepticism, 
coupled  with  Roman  sensuality  and  cor- 
ruption. It  can  not  be  denied  that  devout 
Gentiles,  such  who  were  already  partially 
inclined  to  Judaism,  were  his  main  force. 
Nor  can  it  be  gainsaid  that  he  condescended 
to  superstitions  and  prejudices  unworthy 
of  a  great  man  and  a  sacred  cause.  He  en- 
couraged the  popular  belief  in  demons  and 
unnatural  diseasess  the  prevalent  supersti- 
tion that  Jews  could  banish  the  former  and 
cure  the  latter,  and  the  expectation  that  all 
converts  should  possess  tLe  same  gifts  of 
grace.  He  encouraged,  at  the  start,  the 
superstition  of  "speaking  with  tongues," 
so  that  the  inarticulate  sounds  of  any  fool 
in  a  trance  were  considered  divine  revela- 
tions. Above  all  and  everything,  he  an- 
nounced the  end  of  all  flesh  to  be  nigh,  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  453 

based  upon  this  fundamental  doctrine  his 
entire  scheme  of  salvation  with  Christ  or 
the  Son  of  God  as  the  herald  from  the 
realms  of  death,  that  the  end,  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  last  judgment  are  nigh  ;  as 
the  temporary  lord  of  the  world,  for  the 
time  between  his  resurrection  and  the  day 
of  judgment,  and  as  the  judge  on  that  ter- 
rible day  of  change ;  and  he  must  have 
known,  at  least  after  a  second  sober  thought, 
that  the  end  was  not  yet,  hence  his  scheme 
of  salvation  was  not  true.  Still  all  these 
things  were  means  only  to  reach  his  ulti- 
mate object,  viz:  to  make  an  end  of  Heath- 
enism and  its  demoralizing  effects,  and  to 
carry  the  light  of  truth  into  the  dark 
regions  of  benighted  pagans.  As  he  shook 
.their  wickedness  by  the  terrors  of  the  ap- 
proaching end  of  all  flesh,  so  he  marshaled 
them  under  the  Son  of  God  to  lead  them 
back  to  the  Father.  They  could  not  reach 
the  Father  without  a  son.  When  the  Is- 
raelites had  come  out  of  Egypt,  they  looked 
upon  Moses  as  a  mediator  between  them 
and  God,  and  when  Moses  was  absent  for  a 
short  time,  they  forced  Aaron  to  make  for 
them  gods  which  would  go  out  before  them 
and  which  would  go  in  before  them,  "  For 
this  man  Moses,"  they  clamored,  "who 
hath  brought  us  up  from  the  land  of  Egypt, 
we  know  not  \vhat  has  become  of  him." 
They  could  not  reach  the  abstract  idea  of 
an  infinite  and  absolute  Deity.  So  were 
the  heathens  in  the  days  of  Paul,  and  so 
they  are  to-day.  Their  conceptions  were 


454  ORIGIN   OF 

too  materialistic  and  too  gross  to  think  of 
the  infinite  and  the  absolute.  Therefore 
Paul,  to  reach  his  ultimate  object,  was 
obliged  to  resort  to  those  means.  His  ulti- 
mate object,  no  one  can  deny,  was  great, 
good  and  sublime,  and  he  was  eminently 
successful.  His  mission  was  not  only 
hazardous  to  the  utmost,  but  also  moment- 
ous and  important. 

The  ancient  rabbis  tell  an  anecdote  of 
Acher  or  Paul  which  is  characteristic  in 
this  direction.  The37  say  he  washed  his 
hands  before  meals  and  pronounced  the 
benediction,  as  pious  Pharisees  did ;  then 
he  ate  a  meal  of  forbidden  food ;  and  after 
it  he  again,  like  a  pious  Pharisee,  pro- 
nounced the  benediction.  His  pupil,  Rabbi 
Mair,  asking  an  explanation  of  his  strange 
conduct,  he  is  reported  to  have  said  "  I  will' 
receive  my  reward  for  the  good  and  the 
punishment  for  the  evil  I  do."  This 
simple  story  tells  their  opinion  of  Paul 
that  he  declared  the  ceremonial  law  abol- 
ished, still  he  adhered  to  piety.  It  tells 
that  they  believed  he  did  good  and  bad 
things.  It  tells  much  more  than  this.  The 
good  which  he  did,  the  God  and  the  moral 
law  of  Israel,  which  he  brought  to  the  Gen- 
tiles whom  he  redeemed  from  Paganism, 
bore  its  thousandfold  reward  and  abounded 
with  unfathomable  blessing  to  mankind 
and  to  his  memory.  But  the  evil  which  he 
did,  the  superstitions  and  falsehoods  which 
he  encouraged,  cherished  or  imposed  upon 
his  devotees,  were  fraught  with  misery,  de- 


CHRISTIANITY.  455 

gradation  and  bluer  curses  to  the  human 
family,  in  ail  the  bloody  wars  and  persecu- 
tions, the  debasement  of  man  and  of  man's 
understanding,  and  are  a  chastisement  to 
the  memory  of  Paul.  The  truth  which  he 
/taught  has  become  the  common  property 
of  all  civilized  nations,  an  incentive  to  pro- 
gress and  a  blessing.  The  fictitious  means 
to  which  he  resorted  are  the  cause  of  sec- 
tarianism, ill  will  and  narrow  prejudices, 
and  fade  away  before  the  sun  of  truth. 

It  is  certainly  doubtful  that  Paul,  start- 
ing out  on  his  mission,  was  conscious  of 
its  hazardous  nature  or  the  magnitude  of 
its  influence  on  the  history  of  rnankmd. 
For  enterprises  like  this  require  more  than 
common  enthusiasm,  and  enthusiasts  are 
no  profound  thinkers.  They  are  too  much 
under  the  present  influence  of  ideas  and  im- 
pulses, an  uncontrollable'and 'strange  pres- 
sure, for  which  philosophy  has  no  name, 
to  be  capable  of  profound  calculations  and 
correct  conclusions  from  cause  and  effect. 
Paul  calls  his  own  enthusiasm  revelations 
from  on  high,  and  he  must  have  believed 
it,  or  else  he  could  not  possibly  have  been 
the  enthusiast  which  he  was,  nor  could  he 
have  been  successful  as  he  was.  This  be- 
lief and  the  firm  conviction  of  doing  a  great 
and  good  work  for  its  own  sake,  in  the 
name  of  God  and  to  the  blessing  of  man, 
were  his  power,  his  host  and  his  allies. 

So  prepared  Paul  appears  among  the 
Gentiles  as  Elijah  did  on  Mount  Carmel 
before  Ahab  and  his  host  of  priests  and 


456  ORIGIN  OF 

prophets  of  Baal  and  Astarte.  Like  a 
pillar  of  fire  he  traversed  the  deserts  of  be- 
nighted Heathenism,  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 
Macedonia  and  Greece.  Within  the  short 
space  of  ten  years,  he  kindled  a  fire  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  Roman  empire,  under 
the  eyes  of  the  authorities  of  Rome  and  of 
Jerusalem,  which  in  a  few  centuries  con- 
sumed the  idols  and  their  temples  from  the 
Ganges  to  the  Tiber,  and  from  the  Tiber  to 
the  Thames.  With  a  skillful  hand  he  threw 
the  spark  upon  the  accumulated  combus- 
tibles of  error,  corruption,  aud  slavery,  and 
theVncient  world  exploded  to  make  room 
for  a  new  civilization;  and  Jerusalem  in 
her  fall  triumphed  over  the  proud  queen  of 
the  earth.  Rome  succumbed  to  Palestine. 
In  all  his  troubles  and  perils,  Paul  was 
not  so  much  vexed  and  mortified  by  the 
Jews,  or  even  by  the  Heathens,  as  he  was 
by  his  own  colleagues  from  Jerusalem. 
They  could  not  forgive  the  three  transgres- 
sions, that  he  preached  the  salvation  of  the 
Messiah  to  the  Gentiles,  that  he  abolished 
circumcision,  and  that  he  declared  the  law 
of  Moses  abrogated.  All  the  conciliatory 
attempts  of  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  to 
hide  this  breach  between  Paul  and  his  col- 
leagues of  Jerusalem,  are  in  vain  as  long 
as  the  epistles  of  Paul  are  in  existence. 
They  consist  chiefly  of  sharp  polemics 
against  his  colleagues  in  Jerusalem  about 
these  three  points.  The  author  of  "  The 
Acts  "  (xv,  1)  makes  an  attempt  to  have 
these  vexatious  questions  settled.  To  this 


CHRISTIANITY.  457 

purpose  he  narrates  that  some  of  the  sect 
of  the  Pharisees  who  had  turned -Christians 
insisted  upon  the  retention  of  the  law  and 
circumcision  also  for  the  Gentile  Christians. 
The  Pharisees  in  this  passage  spring  from 
the  imagination  of  Luke ;  for  the  story  is 
copied  from  Paul's  words  (Galat.  ii,  4) : 
"And  that  because  of  false  brethren  un- 
awares brought  in,  who  came  in  privily  to 
spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ 
Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into  bond- 
age :  To  whom  we  gave  place  by  subjection, 
no,  not  for  an  hour;  that  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel  might  continue  with  you."  These 
"  false  brethren  "  were  baptized  into  Phari- 
sees by  Luke,  as  though  the  other  Jews 
were  less  attached  to  the  Law.  This  accu- 
sation of  the  false  brethren  is  taken  in  such 
earnest  consideration  by  the  apostles  and 
elders  of  Jerusalem  that  they  summon 
away  Paul  and  Barnabas  from  their  dis- 
tant field  of  labor,  and  both  come  to  Jeru- 
salem, according  to  Luke.  There  is  an  ob- 
ject in  this  statement.  Luke  wants  to 
make  us  believe  Paul  obeyed  orders  from 
Jerusalem,  of  which  there  is  no  trace  in 
any  of  the  epistles.  Paul  always  repre- 
sents himself  as  entirely  independent  in 
all  he  said  or  did.  He  did  not  go  to  Jeru- 
salem. Paul  states  expressly  he  was  not 
there  till  after  fourteen  years  from  the  date 
of  his  conversion  (Gal.  ii,  1)  which  was  at 
the  end  of  his  journeys,  and  not  in  the 
middle  thereof.  Then  he  says  that  he 

went  there   "by  revelation,"  and   not  in 
30 


458  ORIGIN  OF 

obedience  to  any  summons.  Then  and 
there  for  the  first  time  he  communicated 
unto  them  (in  Jerusalem,)  "  That  Gospel 
•which  I  preach  among  the  Gentiles,"*  of 
which  they  had  no  knowledge  before. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  then  holds  a 
synod  of  the  apostles  and  elders.  Peter 
makes  a  long  speech  in  favor  of  Paul's 
proceedings  among  the  Gentiles,  including, 
as  usual,  a  falsified  quotation  from  the 
prophet,|  and  closes  with  the  proposition  : 
"  That  we  write  unto  them  that  they  ab- 
stain from  pollutions  of  idols  (Paul  per- 
mitted them  to  eat  of  sacrificial  meals,)  arid 
from  fornication,  and  from  things  strangled 
(not  slaughtered  according  to  Jewish  rites,) 
and  from  blood.  For  Moses,  of  old  time, 
hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him, 
being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sab- 
bath day ;"  hence  the  Gentile  Christians 
can  hear  and  learn  anyhow.  This  propo- 
sition was  adopted  and  communicated  in 
letters  to  the  Gentile  Christians  by  two 
messengers,  Judas  and  Silas.  So  circum- 
cision and  the  law  of  Moses  were  declared 
abolished,  and  the  laws  of  slaughtering 
and  eating  no  blood  were  retained.  This 
is  absurd  ;  but  Luke  could  not  help  it,  for 


"On  this  occasion  Paul  also  states  that  he  had  an 
other  Gospel  which  he  preached"  privately  to  them 
which  were  of  reputation."  It  is  easy  to  imagine 
what  was  omitted  in  this  extra  Gospel. 

tOn  this  occasion  Peter  quotes  from  the  prophet 
Amos  ix,  11,  12,  "The  residue  of  mankind  and  all 
nations"  (so  it  is  in  the  Greek,)  but  the  prophet 
said,  "  The  rest  of  Kd«tn  and  ah  the  nations."  The 
other  blunders  interest  us  not. 


CHRISTIANITY.  459 

in  the  very  same  epistle  from  which  he 
took  the  material  to  make  this  story,  Peter 
is  upbraided  by  Paul  (Gal.  ii,  11,)  because 
he  refused  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles  on  ac- 
count of  the  presence  of  messengers  from 
James.  Luke  was  obliged  to  put  this  ab- 
surd proviso  in  Peter's  mouth,  although 
he  could  never  have  talked  so  foolishly. 
Stranger  than  this  is  the  fact  that  Paul 
never  mentions  and  never  cared  for  these 
provisos  in  the  apostolic  letter,  and  re- 
peatedly spoke  against  all  laws  of  forbid- 
den food.  But  we  need  not  trouble  our- 
selves about  these  contradictions,  for  if 
Paul  told  the  truth  about  himself,  this 
synod  did  not  come  off,  and  these  provisos 
were  not  made. 

Luke  anticipates  the  matter.  There  was 
a  meeting  in  Jerusalem  in  the  house  of 
James,  as  the  author  of  the  "We  "  portion 
states  (Acts  xxi,  18.)  It  is  the  same  to 
which  Paul  refers  in  the  above-mentioned 
epistle,  viz:  at  the  end  of  his  mission  jour- 
neys, after  fourteen  years.  But  then  the 
meeting  or  synod  did  not  resolve  any  such 
thing,  for  Paul  says  of  that  synod,  "  But  of 
those  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat,  what- 
soever they  were,  it  irraketh  no  matter  to 
me:  God  accepteth  no  man's  person;  for 
they  who  appeared  to  be  somewhat,  have 
added  nothing  to  me"  (to  my  knowledge,) 
Only  Peter,  James  and  John  acknowledged 
him,  at  the  end  of  his  journey,  as  an  apos- 
tle to  the  Gentiles,  not  indeed  to  Jews ; 
and  caused  him  to  deny  in  Jerusalem  that 
30* 


460  ORIGIN  OF 

he  ever  spoke  to  Jews  of  the  abrogation  of 
the  law  and  circumcision.  (Acts  xxi,  20.) 
After  this  last  meeting  he  wrote  his  epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  in  which  he  says  all  this, 
and  again  protests  against  his  colleagues' 
doings  and  teachings.  He  wrote  the  same 
protests  from  his  prison  in  Cesarea,  from 
Rome  and  even  after  that.  Therefore  not 
the  shadow  of  a  doubt  exists  that  his  col- 
leagues from  Jerusalem  vexed  and  troubled 
him  more  than  the  Jews  and  even  the 
Heathens. 

Nothing,  however,  neither  opposition  nor 
danger,  could  prevent  Paul  to  carry  out  his 
determination.  He  followed  a  manifest 
destiny  with  an  uncompromising  firmness 
and  fervent  enthusiasm.  He  cared  no 
more  in  his  mission  for  the  saints  than  for 
the  Sanhedrin  of  Jirusalem,  and  paid  no 
more  respect  to  Peter  than  he  did  to  the 
high  priest.  Like  all  men  of  this  descrip- 
tion he  saw  but  bis  mission,  trusted  im- 
plicitly in  his  convictions,  and  went  on  with 

irresistible  force  and  unacceierated  ve- 
locity. 

The  journeys  of  Paul,  as  described  in 
"  The  Acts,"  are  taken  partly  from  the 
epistles,  and  partly  from  the  notes  of  the 
"We"  writer,  to  which  Luke  made  addi- 
tions, we  know  not  on  what  authority. 
They  are  of  no  particular  importance  in 
this  direction.  They  properly  belong  to 
ecclesiastical  history.  Still  we  must  briefly 
review  them,  in  order  to  appreciate  the 
merits  of  some  of  Luke'  s  additions  to  the 
sources  before  him. 


CHRISTIANITY.  461 

Paul's  first  journey,  in  company  with  Bar- 
nabas, was  made  to  Cyprus  and  some  states 
of  Asia  Minor  (Acts  xiii,  4.)  Having 
landed  at  Salamis  on  the  Island  of  Cyprus, 
and  preached  in  that  synagogue,  they  went 
across  to  Paphos  at  the  other  end  of  the 
island.  There  they  met  Bar-Jesus  or  Ely- 
rnas,  a  Jewish  sorcerer,  who  opposed 
Paul  before  Sergius  Paulus,  the  Roman 
proconsul  who  desired  "  to  hear  the  word 
of  God."  Paul  rebuked  and  cursed  the 
poor  man  with  blindness,  and  blind  he 
was.  This  induced  the  proconsul  to  be- 
lieve in  the  doctrines  of  Paul. 

It  is  riot  only  the  involved  miracle  which 
renders  the  story  suspicions  ;  it  is  also  the 
fact  that  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "here 
repeats  his  own  story  which  he  said  of 
Peter.  Peter,  in  his  fir1-!  attempt  to  convert 
non-Israelites,  met  with  Simon,  the  magi- 
cian, and  convprted  the  Roman  Centurion 
Cornelius;  therefore  Paul  also  must  meet 
a  Jewish  magician  and  convert  a  promi- 
nent Roman.  Our  author  proceeds  on  the 
special  plan  of  counterbalancing  Paul  and 
Peter,  to  which  end  he  is  obliged  to  invent 
many  a  story,  of  which  this  appear*  to  be 
one  without  any  evidence  of  truth.  If 
Paul  could  perform  miracles  so  easily  as  is 
maintained  in  this  and  in  numerous  other 
cases,  why  did  he  not  tell  us,  in  his  epistles, 
of  this  particular  demonstration  of  his 
divine  mission?  and  why  did  he  submit  to 
so  much  suffering,  as  he  says  he  did,  if  by 
a  little  bit  of  a  miracle  he  could  get  over  it, 


462  ORIGIN  OK 

and  convince  tens  of  thousands  like  Ser- 
gius  Paulus  that  he  stood  under  direct  or- 
ders from  on  high?  We  have  to  ask  these 
questions  against  every  miracle  of  Paul, 
narrated  by  the  author  of  "  The  Acts." 
There  being,  however,  but  one  answer  to 
these  questions,  viz  ;  hence  those  miracles 
are  the  inventions  of  Luke  or  somebody 
else,  we  must  consider  all  such  stories  fic- 
titious. 

Up  to  this  event  Luke  calls  our  man  Saul, 
but  here  (verse  !))  he  inserts  "  who  also  is 
called  Paul."  The  reason  is  very  simple. 
The  journey  across  the  Island  of  Cyprus 
was  taken  from  the  notes  of  the  "We" 
writer,  Luke  only  added  stories  and  mir- 
acles to  serve  his  purpose.  The  "We " 
writer  knew  no  Saul,  as  little  as  the  epistles 
do;  they  knew  of  Paul  onlj\  Luke  being 
ignorant  of  his  Hebrew  name  made  Saul 
of  Paul,  changing  P.  to  S.  It  appears  that 
Paul  was  known  only  and  exclusively  as 
the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  so  that  the  bio- 
graphical notes  concerning  him  began  with 
his  work  in  Cyprus.  Therefore  all  which 
the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  states  about 
him  previous  to  this  event  is  unhistorical  ; 
while  in  the  following  the  main  points  of 
the  journey  are  historical,  and  the  embel- 
lishing stories,  miracles  and  speeches  be- 
long to  Luke,  whose  tendencies  and  aims 
being  conspicuous  anywhere,  deserves  no 
confidence. 

Going  from  Cyprus  to  Asia  Minor,  Paul 
and  Barnabas  traveled  over   the   countries 


CHRISTIANITY.  463 

of  Pamphylia,  Psidia  and  Lycaonia.  They 
preached  in  the  synagogues  with  changing 
success,  finding  believers  now  and  perse- 
cutors then.  The  Gentiles  believed  much 
more  readily  than  the  Jews.  Lake  forgets 
not  to  have  occasional!}'  one  of  his  favorite 
rows  among  the  Jews  with  a  noble  Roman 
or  some  devout  Gentile  to  quell  it.  He  can 
not  do  without  Paul's  healing  some  blind 
or  lame  men  and  driving  out  some  devils, 
as  he  said  the  same  stories  of  Peter.  He 
invents  one  of  his  childish  speeches,  and 
tells  us  Paul  delivered  it  to  the  Jews  of 
Antioch  in  Psidia  (Acts  xiii,  lo)  as  though 
Paul  could  speak  such  empty  phrases.  But 
at  Lystra,  in  the  country  of  Lycaonia,  our 
author  goes  a  little  too  far  for  the  ordinary 
common  sense  of  a  reader,  who  knows  the 
old  tale  of  Jupiter  and  Mercury  who  visited 
the  house  of  Philemon  and  Baucis,  in  that 
same  country  of  Lycaonia.  On  the  strength 
of  that  old  story,  he  has  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas heal  a  lame  man  at  Lystra.  The  people 
seeing  this  miracle,  exclaimed,  "  The  gods 
are  come  down  to  us  in  the  likeness  of  men. 
And  they  called  Barnabas  Jupiter,  and 
Paul  Mercurius,  because  he  was  the  chief 
speaker."  The  priest  brought  oxen  to  sac- 
rifice them  to  the  guests.  No  wonder,  Peter 
having  been  worshiped  by  Cornelius  and 
his  kinsmen,  Paul  must  have  the  same 
honors.  Peter  refused  those  honors,  and 
graciously  maintained  that  he  was  a  man 
only,  so  did  Paul  and  Barnabas  tear  their 
garments  and  cried  out  before  the  multi- 


464  ORIGIN  OF 

tudes:  "We  also  are  men  of  like  passions 

with  you." 

Luke,  however,  did  not  wait  for  the  critic 
to  say  that  his  story  was  not  true  ;  he  says 
so  himself  in  the  sequel,  as  plain  indeed  as 
language  can  convey  it.  He  tells  us  that 
certain  Jews  from  Antioch  and  Iconium 
came  to  Lystra,  and  persuaded  the  people 
to  stone  Paul  ;  "And,  having  stoned  Paul, 
drew  him  out  of  the  city,  suj  posing  he  had 
been  dead."  He  indeed  says,  "Once  was  I 
stoned,"  (II  Cor.  xi,  25,)  but  he  says  not 
that  it  was  in  Lystra,  and  Lake  had  to  fix 
the  place.  But  he  forgot  that  changes  as 
sudden  as  this,  that  one  being  worshiped  a 
god  one  day  is  stoned  to  death  the  next  day, 
are  almost  im possible.  A^ain  he  forgets 
that  he  represented  Barnabas  the  chief  man, 
nevertheless  he  escapes  the  wrath  of  a  rnad 
populace  and  Paul  alone  is  noted.  The  face 
appears  to  be  that  Barnabas  being  a  mere 
traveling  companion  of  Paul  was  not  mo- 
lested, while  Paul,  indeed,  was  stoned,  and 
the  first  part  of  the  story  is  of  Luke's  own 
invention. 

Having  visited  several  other  cities,  he 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  "  ordained  them 
elders  in  every  church,"  they  returned  to 
Antioch  in  Syria.  This  first  voyage  of 
Paul,  it  appears,  was  as  successful  among 
the  Gentiles  as  it  was  unsuccessful  among 
the  Jews.  Here  the  author  of  "  The  Acts" 
brings  in  the  convention  of  the  apostles  in 
Jerusalem,  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  ap- 


CHRISTIANITY.  465 

pearing  before  them,  which,  we  have  seen 
above,  did  not  take  place. 

Shortly  after  that  Paul  started  out  on  a 
second  journey  in  company  with  Silas.  He 
went  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  to  Asia 
Minor,  traveling  over  Lycaonia,  Phrygia, 
Galatia,  Mysia,  up  to  Troas,  hence  through 
all  Asia  Minor  from  sonth-west  to  the 
north-east.  In  Lystra  Paul  engaged  his 
faithful  Timotheus.  He  circumcised  him, 
says  the  author  of  '•  The  Acts,"  (xvi,  3) 
which  can  not  be  true,  if  the  epistles  and 
Paul's  opposition  to  circumcision  are  true. 
The  congregation  of  Galatia,  which  he 
must  have  founded  during  this  tour,  is  not 
mentioned  in  "The  Acts."  From  Troas 
Paul  went  over  to  Macedonia.  In  Philippi 
Paul  mixed  again  among  the  women.  He 
baptized  Lydia  and  lodged  then  in  her 
house.  Here  again  (Acts  xvi,  10)  Luke 
puts  in  one  of  his  peculiar  stories.  A  man 
has  a  slave  damsel  possessed  with  a  spirit 
of  divination,  and  she  earns  much  money 
for  her  master  by  soothsaying.  Now  this 
damsel  follows  Paul  and  his  companions, 
crying  after  them  day  after  day,  "These 
men  are  the  servants  of  the  Most  High  God, 
which  show  unto  us  the  way  of  salvation." 
If  it  is  strange  that  the  evil  spirits  on  this 
and  some  other  occasions  knew  so  well  all 
about  Jesus  and  Paul,  it  is  still  more  won- 
derful that  they  said  it,  as  evil  spirits 
usually  are  liars.  Paul  commanded  the 
demon  to  leave  the  damsel  and,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  he  left,  and  the  soothsaying 


466  ORIGIN  OF 

was  all  gone.  That  this  part  of  the  story 
was  enacted  in  Luke's  imagination  can 
hardly  be  doubted.  But  he  proceeds  with 
a  piece  of  history.  The  master  of  the 
damsel  accused  Paul  and  Silas  before  the 
magistrate  of  preaching  rebellious  doc- 
trines. The  magistrates  "  rent  off  their 
clothes  and  commanded  to  beat  them. 
And  when  they  had  laid  many  stripes 
upon  them,  they  cast  them  into  prison." 
Why  did  Paul  not  prevent  this  suffering  of 
Silas  and  of  himself  by  stating  at  once  that 
he  was  a  Roman  citizen  ?  Because  Luke 
wants  to  work  a  prison  miracle  as  an  offset 
to  the  one  of  Peter  in  the  last  persecution. 
At  midnight  "  there  was  a  groat  earth- 
quake, so  that  the  foundations  of  the  prison 
were  shaken  :  and  •  immediately  all  the 
dot  rs  were  opened,  and  every  one's  Iv-uids 
were  loosed."  This  was  a  new  kind  of 
earthquake  which  did  not  overthrow  the 
buildings  or  things  fastened  to  the  earth; 
it  merely  broke  chains  without  injury  to 
those  who  bore  them.  But  it  had  its  effect. 
It  converted  the  jailor  in  less  than  no  time. 
Next  day  Paul  remembered  that  he  was  a 
Roman  citizen,  and  on  this  ground  he  was 
released  from  custody.  All  that  can  be 
true  in  this  story  is  the  fact  that  Paul  had 
trouble  with  the  people  of  Thyatira,  on  ac- 
count of  his  opposition  to  Paganism,  and 
was  dragged  before  the  magistrate,  who, 
guided  by  passion,  and  not  by  law,  beat  and 
imprisoned  him,  but,  after  a  sober  second 
thought,  was  obliged  to  dismisss  him  in 
peace. 


CHRISTIANITY.  467 

In  Thessalonica  again  only  some  Jews 
but  a  great  many  "devout  Greeks"  be- 
lieved. Here  Luke  has  another  of  his 
favorite  rows  among  the  Jews  enacted,  and 
has  a  Gentile  on  hand  to  save  Paul  and 
Silas.  They  went  to  Berea,  and  would 
have  met  there  with  success,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  Jews  of  Thessalonica  who  fol- 
lowed them  arid  forced  Paul  to  leave  for 
Athens.  In  thi«  citj7  he  disputed  in  the 
synagogue  "with  the  Jews  and  with  the 
devout  persons."  Also  "in  the  market" 
he  disputed  daily  with  various  persons,  so 
that  stoic  and  epicurean  philosophers 
thought  he  was  a  babbler,  while  others  ac- 
cused him  of  preaching  to  them  strange 
gods,  because  he  spoke  of  Jesus  and  the 
resurrection.  Consequent^  they  brought 
him  before  the  Areopagus,  the  superior 
tribunal  of  Athens,  where  he  in  the  speech 
quoted  before,  defended  himself  against 
this  accusation,  and  set  forth  his  belief  in 
one  invisible  and  spiritual  God.  The 
Athenians,  it  appears,  were  not  opposed  to 
this  doctrine;  but  when  he  came  with  his 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  and  the  Gospel  connected  there- 
with, "  Some  mocked,  and  others  said,  We 
wrill  hear  thee  again  on  this  matter."  Only 
two  persons,  it  appears  from  the  Acts(xvii, 
34,)  were  converted,  a  woman  named 
Damaris,  and*  Dionysius,  the  Areopagite. 
This  latter  name  is  taken  from  Christian 
legends,  according  to  which  one  Dionysius 
was  the  first  bishop  of  Athens,  and  he 


468  ORIGIN  OF 

wrote  many  books.  The  fact  appears  to  be 
that  Paul  was  in  Athens  and  met  with  no 
success  there,  because  they  could  not  be 
persuaded  to  believe  in  the  end  of  all  flesh 
to  be  on  hand,  hence  his  Gospel  was  super- 
fluous. 

From  Athens  Paul  went  to  Corinth  where 
he  met  with  better  success,  and  therefore 
he  remained  there  for  some  time.  The 
Jews  would  not  listen  to  him  ;  the  Gentiles 
did.  Here  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  tells 
us  again  one  of  his  peculiar  stories  (xviii, 
2.)  He  informs  us  that  Paul  '•  found  a  cer- 
tain Jew,  named  Aquila,  born  in  Pontus, 
lately  came  from  Italy  with  his  wife  Pris- 
cilla  (because  that  Claudius  had  com- 
manded all  Jews  to  depart  from  Rome)  and 
came  unto  them.  And  because  lie  was  of 
the  same  craft,  he  abode  with  them  and 
wrought:  for  by  their  occupation  they 
were  tentmakers."  Peter  having  been  a 
fisherman,  and  most  all  the  apostles  having 
trades,  Paul  must  be  a  tentmaker.  Where 
and  when  he  learned  the  trade  is  another 
question.  If  he  was  brought  up  in  Jeru- 
salem, "at  the  feet  of  Gamliel,"(  Acts  xxii, 
3,)  was  then  engaged  in  either  persecuting 
the  Christians  or  in  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles,  where  and  when  did  he  learn  that 
trade?  Most  all  the  rabbis  had  a  trade, 
they  say,  and  so  had  Paul.  But  it  is  not 
true.  Some  of  the  poor  rabbte  had  a  trade, 
because  they  had  families  to  support;  but 
Paul  had  none  to  support  and  was  brought 
up  at  the  feet  of  Gamliel.  He  did  not  begin 


CHRISTIANITY.  469 

his  studies  in  an  advanced  age,  like  Rabbi 
Akiba  and  others  ;  he  was  a  young  man 
when  he  left  Jerusalem.  The  tent  making 
trade  is  an  invention  of  Luke  as  an  offset 
to  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  who  were, 
in  their  early  days,  poor  laborers.  Besides 
all  this,  no  historiographer  mentions  the 
fact  that  Claudius  banished  the  Jews  from 
Rome,  hence  it  can  not  be  true.  This 
Aquila,  born  in  Pontus,  is  the  translator  of 
the  Pentateuch  into  the  Greek.  He  was  a 
Jewish  proselyte,  although  he  may  have 
been  a  Christian  first  and  then  he  embraced 
Judaism,  as  some  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Church  state.  This  Aquila  was  a  relative 
of  the  Emperor  Hadrian.  He  translated 
the  Pentateuch  sometime  in  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century ;  hence  he  was  no 
tentmaker,  and  Paul  could  hardly  have 
met  him  in  Corinth  toward  60  A.  C.* 

Here  again  Luke  produces  one  of  his 
favorite  rows  among  the  Jews,  and  a  noble 
Roman  to  settle  the  matter  fairly  and 
squarely,  as  usual,  in  favor  of  Paul.  He 
left  Corinth  in  company  of  Aquila  and 
Priscilla.  If  there  should  be  any  doubt  as 
to  the  fabulous  additions  made  by  Luke, 
one  only  need  read  that  he  says  of  Paul 
"having  shorn  his  head  in  Conchrea;  for 
he  had  a  vow."  Some  commentators  put 
this  piece  of  mockery  on  Aquila,  which 
does  not  improve  the  case.  Paul,  the  great 

*See  also  in  Dr.  Z.  Frankel's  Monatschrift  1851  p. 
192,  Juedisch-geschichtliche  Studien  von  Dr.  H. 
Oraetz. 


470  ORIGIN  OF 

opponent  of  the  law  which  he  declares  ab- 
rogated, had  the  Nazarite  vow  on  his  head, 
or  taught  Aquila  to  perform  this  Mosaic 
law.  Here  the  hand  of  Luke  is  visible, 
who,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  would  not  ad- 
mit that  Paul  abrogated  the  law,  and  makes 
here,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy's  circum- 
cishon,  a  hypocrite  of  the  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles. 

Leaving  Aquila  and  his  wife  in  Ephesus, 
Paul  went  back  to  Antioch.  Here  again 
Luke  says  he  went  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  a 
feast  (Acts  xviii,  21)  which  he  adds  on  his 
own  authority,  to  show  that  Paul  who  ab- 
rogated the  law  observed  the  law.  He 
went  back  to  Antioch.  It  was  most  likely 
then,  when  he  rebuked  Peter  for  his  hy- 
pocrisy, eating  with  the  Gentiles  all  the 
time,  till  messengers  came  from  James, 
whom  he  feared  and  therefore  refused  to 
eat  with  the  Gentiles.  Luke  says,  Paul 
went  to  Jerusalem  "  and  saluted  the 
church,"  and  Paul  says  he  did  not,  and 
we  must  believe  Paul. 

Paul  entered  soon  on  a  third  journey  to 
convert  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xviii,  23.)  He 
"  went  over  all  the  country  of  Galatia  and 
Phrygia  in  order  to  strengthen  all  the  dis- 
ciples." He  stopped  a  long  time  at  Ephe- 
sus, Luke  says  three  years.  He  succeeded 
here  in  converting  the  disciples  of  John  the 
Baptist.  Meeting  with  very  little  success 
among  the  Jews,  he  turned  to  the  Gentiles 
with  better  success.  The  school-house  of 
a  certain  Tyrannus  was  the  church  of  Paul. 


CHRISTIANITY.  471 

Luke  forgets  not  to  ascribe  to  Puul  great 
miracles  which  he  wrought,  and  he  wrote 
it  in  his  favorite  style.  The  most  ludicrous 
anecdote  is  that  of  the  Jewish  exorcists 
who  banished  evil  spirits  by  the  naijie  of 
Jesus  "  whom  Paul  preacheth."  Such  de- 
ception might  have  been  practiced.  Every 
thing  is  possible  with  impostors.  One  of 
the  evil  spirits,  like  the  one  which  was  in 
the  Macedonean  damsel,  broaches  the  se- 
cret. The  refractory  demon  being  accosted 
by  some  of  these  impostors,  suddenly  ex- 
claimed, "  Jesus  I  know,  and  Paul  I  know  ; 
but  who  arfe  ye  ?"  The  poor  man  in  whom 
the  demon  was  leaped  ou  the  ostracists  and 
handled  them  so  badly,  "  that  they  ned  out 
of  that  house  naked  and  wounded."  (Acts 
xix,  13.)  The  effect  was,  as  usual,  the  con- 
version of  manj-,  and  the  most  wonderful 
part  of  the  story  is,  that  they  burnt  their 
books  worth  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver. 
The  price  of  these  books  is  rather  high,  as 
the  knowledge  and  pluck  of  the  demon  are 
wonderful  indeed  ;  but  the  story  can  not 
be  true. 

Next  follows  the  riot  of  the  silversmiths 
of  Ephesus.  These  men  lived  on  manu- 
facturing "silver  shrines  for  Diana,"  and 
Paul  interfered  considerably  with  their 
trade  by  his  successful  opposition  to  Pagan- 
ism. Demetrius,  one  of  the  wealthy  man- 
ufacturers,, convoked  the  craftsmen  and  ex- 
cited them  to  a  revolt,  so  that  they  caught 
two  companions  of  Paul,  and  dragged  them 
before  the  public  forum.  The  disciples 


472  ORIGIN  OF 

and  friends  would  not  permit  Paul  to  go 
there,  where  confusion,  passion  and  vio- 
lence appeared  to  reign.  In  the  midst  of 
all  this  confusion,  hotvever,  Luke  forgets 
not  to  state  that  the  Jews  were  some  of  the 
chief  actors,  although  he  first  spoke  of  the 
silversmiths  only.  The  town  clerk  ap- 
peased the  rioters,  and  the  whole  row 
turned  out  a  fiasco.  This  was  written  to 
gratify  Luke's  propensities  for  rows  and 
aiming  a  blow  at  the  Jews.  It  is  evident 
that  the  Christian  congregations  of  Asia 
Minor  in  those  early  days  were  not  numer- 
ous enough  to  endanger  the  trade  in  idols. 
Luke  anticipates  a  state  of  affairs,  which 
might  have  been  true  a  century  after  Paul. 
Paul  left  Ephesus,  leaving  his  faithful 
Timothy  there  to  take  charge  "  that  they 
teach  no  other  doctrine,"  (I  Tim.  i,  3,)  went 
again  to  Macedonia  and  to  Greece  and  re- 
mained there  about  three  months.  Again 
Luke  tells  us,  the  Jews  laid  in  wait  for 
him,  and  he  could  not  return,  as  he  in- 
tended, by  the  way  of  Macedonia,  so  he 
was  obliged  to  go  the  other  way  to  Troas. 
He  left  Philippi,  arrived  in  Troas,  and 
wrought  another  miracle,  and  then  went 
to  Assos  and  Mitylene,  Samos,  Miletus, 
from  thence  to  Coos,  Rhodes  and  Patara, 
and  over  to  Tyre.  Here  the  disciples  cau- 
tioned him  not  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  but  be 
insisted  upon  going  there,  and  settle,  if 
possible,  his  difficulties  with  the  apostles 
in  Jerusalem.  A  prophet  came  to  him  at 
Cesarea,  and  cautioned  him  again  not  to 

I 


CHRISTIANITY.  473 

go  to  Jerusalem  ;  but  it  appears  he  attached 
little  importance  to  prophets,  he  went  to 
Jerusalem  to  settle  his  difficulties.  Nothing 
else,  as  is  evident  from  his  words  to  Timo- 
thy (I,  i,  1,)  was  the  cause  of  his  intense 
desire  and  firm  resolution  to  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem, except  to  come  to  an  understanding 
with  the  apostles,  who  put  more  obstacles 
in  his  way  than  any  other  party. 

Paul  arrived  in  Jerusalem,  the  synod 
took  place  in  the  house  of  James,  "and  all 
the  elders  were  present."  They  heard 
what  he  had  to  say ;  but  they  did  not 
settle  the  difficulties.  "Thou  seest, 
brother,"  said  they  to  him,  "  how  many 
thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which  believe; 
and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law:  And 
they  are  informed  of  thee  that  thou  teach- 
est  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gen- 
tiles to  forsake  Moses,  saying  that  they 
ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
neither  to  walk  after  the  customs.  What 
is  it  therefore?  the  multitude  must  needs 
come  together :  for  they  will  hear  that  thou 
art  come."  (Acts  xxi,  20.)  They  not  only 
could  not  anu  did  not  justify  his  doctrines 
concerning  the  law  and  circumcision,  but 
also  cautioned  him  that  the  Jew  Christians 
might  harm  him,  and  therefore  advised 
him  to  practice  hypocrisy,  in  Jerusalem, 
although  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  adds 
the  absurdity  that  they  had  written  to  the 
Gentiles  to  observe  only  four  command- 
ments concerning  forbidden  food  and  forni- 
cation. Paul  himself  informs  us  that  be- 
31 


474  ORIGIN  OF 

sides  Peter,  James  and  John,  a  very  small 
minority,  none  reached  him  the  hand  of 
brotherhood,  and  none  else  acknowledged 
him  an  apostle  tothe  Gentiles, and  to  them 
only.  The  rest  opposed  him,  and  he  did 
not  learn  much  of  them,  he  says. 

Poor  man,  after  so  much  labor,  so  nu- 
merous toils,  sufferings,  perils  and  anxie- 
ties, he  had  no  friend  outside  of  his  con- 
verts, no  acknowledgment  and  no  encour- 
agement from  any  side.  After  so  many 
years  of  toil  he  is  not  safe  in  Jerusalem 
among  those  whose  master  he  had  pro- 
claimed, and  whose  cause  he  had  promul- 
gated, and  is  advised  to  practice  mockery 
and  hypocrisy  in  self-protection,  to  deny 
his  principles  for  the  sake  of  his  life.  This 
accounts  for  the  violence  of  passion  which 
characterizes  his  epistles,  especially  when 
he  speaks  of  his  colleagues  and  their  oppo- 
sition to  the  Gospel  which  he  preached. 
However  disfigured  by  Luke,  the  facts  are 
undeniable.  Paul  was  as  successful  among 
the  Gentiles  of  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and 
partly  also  in  Macedonia,  as  he  was  unsuc- 
cessful among  the  Jews  and  the  Athenians, 
He  was  considered  a  babbler  by  the  philo- 
sophers, as  we  this  very  day  estimate  all 
those  who  imitate  him  in  preaching  the  ap- 
proaching end  of  all  flesh.  The  Jews  con- 
sidered him  an  apostate  who  rejected  the 
laws  of  Moses  and  the  custom  of  Israel. 
The  Jew  Christians  rejected  him  as  a  dan- 
gerous innovator  and  antichrist.  His 
hand  was  against  every  one,  and  every 


CHRISTIANITY.  475 

one's  hand  was  against  him.  It  appears 
that  many  of  his  disciples  began  to  suspect 
his  Gospel,  since  the  end  which  he  prophe- 
sied did  not  come,  and  he  preaches  hope 
and  faith,  and  faith  and  hope  again,  in  his 
epistles;  nevertheless  he  was  obliged  to  de- 
liver some  to  Satan,  as  he  says  to  Timothy, 
and  most  likely  many  more  deserted  his 
churches.  So  we  meet  Paul,  after  a  long, 
successful  and  brilliant  career,  deserted, 
almost  alone  in  the  city  where  he  once  sat 
at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel. 

This,  most  likely,  was  the  situation  to 
which  the  rabbis  refer  in  the  following  tale  : 
Acher  or  Paul  narrated,  "  I  once  rode  be- 
hind the  temple,  and  I  heard  a  Bath  kol, 
the  voice  of  the  Holy  Ghost  exclaiming, 
Return  all  ye  troward  children  except 
Acher,  who  knows  my  glory  and  rebels 
against  me."  It  takes  no  particular  stretch 
of  the  imagination  to  imagine  the  bitter 
feelings  of  Paul,  when  he  saw  himself 
obliged  to  play  the  hypocrite  in  the  temple, 
and  found  himself  deserted  from  all  sides, 
alone  among  those  worshiping  crowds,  too 
far  advanced  in  his  system  to  return  to 
those  around  him,  and  too  sensitive  and 
scrupulous,  not  to  feel  the  painful  situation 
in  which  he  was,  a  prodigy  among  his 
people,  and  his  success  among  the  Gentiles 
was  by  no  means  secured  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  entire  failure. 


31* 


476  ORIGIN  OF 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
CAPTURE,    TRIAL    AND    DEPORTATION    OF 

PAUL. 

Paul  must  have  appeared  rather  small  in 
his  own  estimation,  on  walking  up  to  the 
temple  in  company  of  the  four  men,  whose 
expenses  he  paid,  to  purify  himself  and 
"  be  at  charges"  with  them,  that  they  may 
shave  their  heads :  "  and  all  may  know 
that  those  things,  whereof  they  were  in- 
formed concerning  thee  (Paul,)  are  nothing  ; 
but  that  thou  thyself  also  walkest  orderly 
and  keepest  the  law.  Mr.  Wisliceuus  and 
other  critics  think  this  is  an  addition  of 
Luke  to  the  original  notes;  but  there  is  no 
good  reason  why  Paul  discomfited  before 
the  synod,  and  he  tells  us  he  had  but  three 
of  the  whole  assembly  in  his  favor  in  re- 
gard to  Gentiles,  and  none  in  regard  to 
Jews — should  not  have  submitted  momen- 
tarily at  least  to  the  dictates  of  that  synod, 
in  order  to  get  off  in  peace.  He  had  come 
to  Jerusalem  to  come  to  an  understanding 
with  his  fellow  Christians,  in  order  to  be 
opposed  no  longer  by  their  messengers 
among  the  Gentiles,  no  other  reason  in  the 
world  can  be  assigned  to  his  consistent  re- 
solve to  visit  Jerusalem.  They  demanded 
of  him  a  public  confession  that  he  adhered 
to  the  law,  and  like  numerous  prelates 
after  him  under  similar  circumstances,  he 
yielded  to  appease  his  fellow  Christians  and 
for  the  sake  of  his  own  safety  in  Jerusa- 
lem. Like  Galileo  he  abjured  his  faith  for 
a  moment  and  then  exclaimed,  the  earth 


CHRISTIANITY.  477 

moves !  When  he  was  out  of  Jerusalem 
again,  he  defended  his  theories  with  the  in- 
dignation of  offended  manliness,  but  mo- 
mentarily he  yielded.  Paul  was  none  of 
those  imprudent  enthusiasts  who  sacrifice 
themselves  to  emergencies  which  might  be 
overcome  or  outflanked. 

The  synod  had  nothing  to  fear  of  the 
.  Jews  of  Palestine,  because  they  did  not 
know  Paul.  They  certainly  must  have 
heard  of  his  activity  among  the  Gentiles, 
this  or  that  merchant  visiting  those  conn- 
tries  might  have  seen  him,  very  few  any- 
how ;  but  passing  abroad  as  he  did  under 
the  assumed  name  of  Paul,  they  could  only 
guess  who  he  might  be,  without  knowing 
it  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  Fourteen 
years  ago  he  was  one  of  the  thousands  of 
young  students  wh»  frequented  the  schools 
of  Jerusalem,  and  could  not  have  a  very 
extensive  acquaintance  in  the  city,  as  those 
young  students  usually  associate  among 
themselves,  so  that  now  but  a  few  could 
have  recognized  him,  without  knoAving, 
however,  that  he  was  the  man  called  Paul. 

The  apprehension  of  the  synod  was,  that 
the  Jew  Christians  who  must  have  known 
more  about  him,  and  must  n  cessarily 
learn  his  presence  in  Jerusalem,  "  must 
needs  come  together,"  and  might  do  him 
harm.  They  only  speak  of  the  Jews  who 
believed  in  Jesus  (verse  20)  and  that  they, 
being  informed  of  his  course  among  the 
Gentiles  (verse  21,)  might  congregate 
against  him  (verse  22.)  The  Jews  them- 


478  ORIGIN  OF 

selves  are  not  mentioned  at  all.  Therefore 
it  is  so  much  more  likely  that  Paul  con- 
sidered it  prudent  and  practical  to  yield  to 
the  demand  of  the  synod,  and  assume  al- 
legiance to  the  laws  of  Moses. 

Besides  this  the  synod  had  just  cause  to 
dread  the  congregating  of  multitudes,  even 
if  they  had  no  intention  to  harm  Paul ;  be- 
cause, as  Josephus  chronicles  repeatedly, 
the  slightest  disorders  of  a  multitude  were 
welcome  pretexts  to  the  bloodthirsty  Ro- 
man procurators,  or  a  barbarous  massacre, 
or  the  crucifixion  of  individuals  as  impos- 
tors or  rebels.  Paul  must  have  known  this 
and  adopted  every  means  of  precaution  to 
prevent  any  and  every  demonstration  for 
or  against  himself.  Had  Jesus  been  as 
prudent  as  Paul  was,  he  would  not  have 
been  crucified. 

Nobody  can  tell  why  Paul  remained  in 
Jerusalem  after  the  session  of  the  synod, 
whether  he  waited  for  a  second  convocation 
of  that  body  and  resolutions  more  favor- 
able to  his  cause;  or  whether  he  considered 
it  prudent  to  remain  there  some  time,  in 
order  to  convince  his  disciples  of  the  peace- 
able solution  of  the  existing  difficulties  be- 
tween him  and  his  colleagues.  It  could 
not  be  mere  curiosity,  nor  could  it  be  at- 
tachment to  the  Mosaic  laws  and  institu- 
tions, or  a  sudden  impulse  of  patriotism. 
We  are  only  told  that  he  remained  there 
and  did  penance,  and  can  see  in  this  act 
only  the  submission  of  Paul  to  the  synod. 


CHK1ST1AN1TY.  479 

For  some  days  all  went  well.  But  when 
the  seven  days  of  purification  were  almost 
ended,  Jews  from  Asia  recognized  him  in 
the  temple,  laid  hands  on  him,  and  cried 
out,  "  This  is  the  man  that  teacheth  all 
men  every- where  against  the  people,  and 
the  law,  and  this  place:  and  further 
brought  Greeks  also  into  the  temple,  and 
hath  polluted  this  holy  place."  The  first 
of  these  accusations  was  correct,  the  second 
was  not;  it  resulted  from  a  mistake.  This, 
according  to  the  author  of  "  The  Acts,"  was 
the  signal  to  one  of  his  iavoriie  rows  among 
the  Jews  with  a  noblv  Roman  stepping  up  :n 
due  time  to  quell  it.  Here  (Acts  xxi,  .->0) 
the  author  deserts  the  historical  ground  en- 
tirely and  returns  to  it  with  the  beginning 
of  the  twenty-seventh  chapter,  "And  when 
it  was  determined  that  we  should  sail  into 
Italy,"  &c.  The  whole  portion  of  the  nar- 
rative between  those  two  points  is  more  or 
less  fictitious,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel. 

The  cry  and  double  accusation  of  those 
Jews  from  Asia  against  Paul,  says  Luke, 
had  the  terrible  effect  that  "all  the  city 
moved,"  as  if  Jerusalem  had  been  a  small 
town  of  rowdies,  "  and  the  people  ran  to- 
gether: and  they  took  Paul,  and  drew  him 
out  of  the  temple:  and  forthwith  the  doors 
were  shut,"  with  the  intention  to  kill  him. 
This  is  not  exactly  true,  because  it  was  not 
so  easy  a  task  to  alarm  the  whole  city  of 
Jerusalem  ;  Paul  could  not  have  entered 
the  temple  before  his  seven  days  of  purifi- 


480  ORIGIN  OF 

cation  were  over*  and  the  doors  of  the 
temple  were  never  closed  in  day  time.  If 
a  demonstration  against  Paul  actually  took 
place  somewhere  about  the  temple,  it  is 
embellished  by  Luke  to  suit  his  notions. 

"And  as  they  went  about  to  kill  him  " 
(Paul,)  the  author  of  "The  Acts"  contin- 
ues, "  tidings  came  unto  the  chief  captain 
of  the  band,  that  all  Jerusalem  was  in  an 
uproar:  Who  immediately  took  soldiers, 
and  centurions,  and  ran  down  unto  them: 
and  when  they  saw  the  chief  captain  and 
the  soldiers,  they  ceased  beating  Paul."  If 
it  is  strange,  very  strange  indeed,  that  all 
the  people  of  a  large  city  without  previous 
consultation  unanimously  resolved  to  kill 
a  man,  and  all  of  them  could  not  get  done 
killing  him  before  the  Roman  soldiery  in- 
terfered, things  impossible  in  themselves  ; 
it  is  still  stranger  that  such  a  general  row 
was  possible  in  a  city,  whose  citizens,  for  a 
thousand  years  previous, had  been  governed 
by  the  laws  of  Moses.  Law  and  law  again, 
a  law  for  every  possible  emergency,  is  the 
principle  charge  made  against  the  Phari- 
sees ;  while,  according  to  Luke's  stories, 
there  is  no  shadow  of  a  law  anywhere 
among  the  Jews.  Any  sensible  person  is 
obliged  to  admit  that  so  large  and  old  a  city 
as  Jerusalem  was,  visited  continually  by 
so  many  thousands  of  strangers,  if  she  had 
not  been  governed  by  the  laws  of  Moses, 
must  have  had  police  regulations,  for  the 
security  of  life  and  property.  Unfortu- 

*Leviticus  vi,  9, 10,  and  rabbin,  commentaries  ibid. 


CHRISTIANITY.  481 

nately  the  laws  of  this  description  are  care- 
fully preserved  in  the  Talmud,*  and  de- 
monstrate prudent  and  minute  legislation. 
In  a  city,  governed  by  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
by  a  system  of  police  regulations,  a  row 
like  the  one  described  by  Luke  is  utterly 
impossible.  If  a  thing  could  be  worse  than 
impossible,  this  story  would  certainly  be 
so ;  because  aside  of  all  the  above  consi- 
derations, one  person,  and,  to  say  the 
worst,  one  who  taught  a  religion  contrary 
to  their  notions,  could  not  possibly  have 
thrown  a  whole  city  into  such  spasms,  such 
tits  of  insanity,  that  all  ran  amock  to  kill  one 
person,  did  not  have  accomplished  their 
purpose  before  the  Roman  soldiery  had  in- 
terfered. 

Aside  of  all  these  considerations,  two  es- 
sential points  must  be  borne  in  mind.  The 
first  is  this:  All  known  sources,  be  they 
Jewish  or  Gentile,  of  fifteen  centuries  of 
Hebrew  history,  from  Joshua  to  Hadrian, 
make  no  mention  of  the  execution  of  a 
single  person  on  account  of  his  religious  or 
his  political  opinions  expressed  in  this  or 
that  way.  Once,  and  once  only,  we  are 
informed  of  the  persecution  of  witches  by 
King  Saul,  and  once  in  the  time  of  a  Mac- 
cabean  ruler.  If  there  had  not  been 
granted  the  widest  scope  to  religious 
thought,  how  could  those  numerous  sects 
have  sprung  up  in  Palestine?  The  Phari- 
sean  rabbis,  with  all  the  imperfections  upon 

*See  "ueber  manches  polizeiliche des  talmudischen 
Kechts,"  by  Dr.  Z.  Frankel,Monatsschriftl852,where 
many  of  the  sources  are  quoted. 


482  ORIGIN  OF 

their  heads,  were  opposed  to  capital  pun- 
ishment, and  virtually  abolished  it  in  re- 
gard to  political  and  religious  offenders, 
without  substituting  another  mode  of  pun- 
ishtnent.t  But  all  at  once,  and  all  is  iso- 
lated in  the  evangelical  sources  which  come 
with  stories  of  rank  fanaticism,  lawlessness 
and  barbarism,  all  charged  upon  the  Jews, 
and  all  possible  mercy,  rectitude  and  piety 
given  to  the  Romans,  whose  history,  espe- 
cially of  that  and  the  previous  century,  is 
full  of  the  most  revolting  outrages  on  hu- 
manity. Any  person  looking  carefully 
upon  this  point  is  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  evangelical  accounts  in  regard  to 
Jesus  and  his  disciples,  as  well  as  in  regard 
to  Paul,  have  been  falsified  with  the  special 
intention  to  natter  the  Romans  and  slander 
the  Jews.  This  is  supported  by  the  Latin 
sources.  Tacitus  (Annals  xv)  says  not  that 
the  Jews  crucified  Jesus  ;  he  says  of  him, 
"  who,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  was  brought 
to  punishment  by  Pontius  Pilate,  the  pro- 
curator." In  Pliny's  epistle  to  Trajan,  it  is 
not  said  that  the  Jews  persecuted  the  Chris- 
tians as  one  of  their  sects;  it  says  that  the 
subordinates  of  Trajan  were  commanded 
by  an  edict  to  do  it,  and  did  it  most  unmer- 
cifully. The  same  T raj  a  a  who  was  an 
enemy  of  the  Jews  was  also  an  enemy  of 
the  Christians.  But  in  the  evangelical 
stories  all  these  relations  appear  in  an  in- 
verted position. 

tSee  all  the  proviso's  in  regard  to  Saken  Mftnirr  in 
the  Talmud  .S'v/i/i^'/'^i,  or  in  .Maiuionkles,  Yad.  H. 
Mamrim. 


CHRISTIANITY.  483 

The  second  point  is  this:  We  read  the 
accounts  of  Jrsephus  from  the  death  of 
Herod  I  to  the  days  of  the  last  war,  and  we 
find  the  state  of  affairs  to  be  in  the  main, 
that  the  usurpations  of  Rome  and  the  out- 
rages of  her  procurators  in  Judea,  gave 
rise  to  numerous  revolts,  the  leaders  of 
which  were  religious  pretenders,  in  many 
cases,  prophets,  Messiahs,  or  such  other 
titles  as  they  assumed,  like  Judas  the  Gali- 
lean, his  two  sons,  Theudas,  the  prophet 
from  Egypt  and  many  more.  All  of  them 
were  persecuted,  some  crucified,  not  by  the 
Jews,  bu*.  by  the  Romans,  and  everybody 
almost  who  raised  his  voice  in  behalf  of 
a  new  idea  suffered  the  same  fate.  Thou- 
sands died  on  the  cross.  In  all  instances, 
without  exception,  the  Jews  appear  as  the 
persecuted  part  and  the  Romans  as  the 
persecutors.  In  the  evangelical  writings 
only,  the  Jews  rage  against  their  own  sons 
and  brothers,  and  the  Romans  defend  them. 
The  roles  are  suddenly  changed,  without 
any  reason  or  cause.  History  suddenly 
belies  herself,  and  a  people  turns  treacher- 
ous to  itself.  The  thing  is  impossible,  a 
child  almost  can  see  it.  The  evangelical 
writers  had  their  special  reasons  to  flatter 
the  Romans  whom  they  feared  and  whose 
favors  they  courted,  and  to  insult  the  Jews 
of  Avhoni  the}7  had  nothing  to  fear  or  to 
expect. 

This  is  also  the  case  with  Luke's  account 
of  Paul's  capture  and  trial.  It  is  one  mass 
of  representations  to  flatter  the  Romans 


484  ORIGIN  OF 

and  insult  the  Jews,  the  same  policy  which 
we  have  noticed  all  along.  Cornelius,  Ser- 
gius  Paulus,  Dyonisius  of  Athens,  the  town 
clerk  of  Ephesus,  the  judges  of  Corinth, 
and  all  the  other  Gentiles,  are  perfect  an- 
gels ;  and  every  Jew  we  meet  in  "  The 
Acts,"  Ganiliel  excepted,  is  a  perfect  devil. 
This  can  not  be  true. 

It  may  be  and  it  may  not  be  that  some 
Jews  of  Asia  denounced  Paul  somewhere 
about  the  temple,  there  is  no  proof  on 
record,  and  in  consequence  thereof  a  tu- 
multous  crowd  gathered  around  him, 
which  getting  somewhat  louder  than  Ro- 
man orders  permitted,  a  squad  of  soldiers 
dispersed  the  crowd  and  arrested  Paul.  It 
is  sure  that  the  Romans  arrested  him 
under  the  impression  that  he  was  a  ring 
leader,  for  the  Roman  captain  did  not  res- 
cue him ;  he  "  commanded  him  to  be  bound 
with  two  chains,"  "  to  be  carried  into  the 
castle,"  and  there  asked  him,  "Art  not  thou 
that  Egyptian  (the  prophet)  which  before 
these  days  madest  an  uproar,  and  led'st 
out  into  the  wilderness  four  thousand  men 
that  were  robbers?"  If  the  people  had 
beaten  Paul  or  had  demonstrated  any  in- 
tention to  kill  him,  the  Roman  captain 
could  not  have  suspected  him  to  be  the  man 
whose  avowed  intention  it  was  to  free  Je- 
rusalem from  her  Roman  usurpers. 

Paul  was  led  to  the  castle,  and  the  multi- 
tude followed.  He  having  spoken  to  the 
captain  and  obtained  permission  to  address 
the  people,  spoke  to  them  from  the  stairs 


CHRISTIANITY.  485 

of  the  castle,  so  Luke  narrates.  Paul 
"  beckoned  with  the  hand  to  the  people," 
to  the  excited  multitude  who  a  few  min- 
utes before  were  about  to  kill  him,  and 
"  there  was  made  a  great  silence."  This 
transition  is  as  unnatural  as  is  the  other 
part  of  the  narrative,  viz :  that  Paul  who 
had  been  mercilessly  beaten  by  the  crowd, 
now  all  at  once  is  recovered  and  makes  a 
speech  to  the  mob.  Either  the  populace 
was  not  as  excited  as  Luke  says,  or  they 
were  not  silenced  so  easily.  Either  Paul 
was  not  beaten  by  the  populace  or  he  made 
no  speech.  We  apprehend  both  statements 
are  untrue.  To  what  purpose  could  Paul 
have  addressed  the  populace.  Could  he  ex- 
pect of  them  that  they  should  rescue  him 
from  the  power  of  the  Romans?  Certainly 
not,  even  if  he  could  convince  them  of  the 
justice  of  his  cause,  he  could  not  expect 
any  such  thing  of  them  who  were  power- 
less before  the  Roman  garrison.  Did  he 
speak  merely  to  justify  himself  before  his 
assailants  ?  It  is  not  only  unnatural  for  a 
man  who  was  a  while  ago  beaten  and 
abused  by  a  mob,  to  address  them  as  dis- 
passionately as  Luke's  speech  on  this  occa- 
sion is,  who  wrote  it  in  his  quiet  room,  so 
that  nobody  will  expect  even  of  Paul  to  be 
so  entirely  free  of  the  usual  human  pas- 
sions ;  but  it  is  also  untrue  that  Paul  spoke 
the  words  which  Luke  ascribes  to  him.  In 
the  first  place,  Luke  says  they  were  grati- 
fied to  hear  him  speak  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue.  (Acts  xxii,  2.)  Did  they  not  know 


480  ORIGIN  OF 

that  he  was  a  Jew?  and  knowing  that  he 
was  a  Jew  speaking  to  Jews,  how  could 
they  expect  him  to  speak  otherwise  than  in 
their  own  dialect  ?  and  with  this  expecta- 
tion, how  could  they  he  so  particularly 
gratified?  This  notice  was  evidently  put 
in  by  one  who,  unacquainted  with  the  pre- 
cise state  of  things,  thought  the  Greek  was 
spoken  in  Jerusalem  as  frequently  as  the 
peculiar  dialect  of  the  country,  only  that 
the  populace  preferred  the  latter. 

The  story  which  occurs  here  in  Paul's 
speech— of  his  going  to  Damascus  to  bring 
the  Christians  bound  to  Jerusalem  together 
with  the  vision  he  had  on  his  way  to  Damas- 
cus— we  have  seen  above  is  not  true,  hence 
not  Paul  but  Luke  said  it.  He  is  supposed 
to  have  said,  "  the  high  priest  doth  bear  me 
witness,"  and  standing  before  the  high 
priest  (Acts  xxiii,  5,)  he  said  :  ".I  wist  not, 
brethren,  that  he  was  the  high  priest,"  so 
he  did  not  know  him  who  was  to  be  his 
witness.  The  commentators  think  he  re- 
ferred to  documents  with  the  high  priest's 
signature;  if  he,  indeed,  fourteen  years  ago 
had  such  a  document,  which  he  most  likely 
had  not,  it  is  wonderful  that  he  had  it  on 
hand  just  now  in  this  tumult.  He  men- 
tions Ananias  of  Damascus  and  the  death 
of  Stephen,  both  of  which  belong  to  Luke 
and  not  to  Paul.  He  mentions  his  coming 
to  Jerusalem  right  after  his  conversion 
which  he  flatly  denies  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians.  The  speech  is  Luke's  and  not 
Paul's.  It  is  neither  his  spirit,  nor  his  way 


CHRISTIANITY.  487 

to  argue.  So  is  the  sequel,  the  wild  voci- 
ferations and  the  terrible  conduct  of  the 
crowd  who  had  listened  to  the  speech. 
Luke  supposes,  when  Paul  said  to  the 
crowd,  "And  he  (Jesus)  said  unto  me,  De- 
part :  for  I  will  send  thee  far  hence  unto 
the  Gentiles  "—their  patience  gave  way,and 
they  would  not  listen  any  longer,  as  if  Paul 
had  been  accused  on  account  of  saying  this 
or  that  to  the  Gentiles  ;  or  as  if  they  had 
thought  there  was  a  crime  in  his  going  to 
the  Gentiles.  This  is  evidently  Luke's 
private  opinion  which  he  had  already  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Peter  speaking  to  Cor- 
nelius. 

Luke's  speech  being  delivered  and  one  of 
his  favorite  rows  being  closed,  the  captain 
commands  that  Paul  be  examined  "  by 
scourging  "  in  the  style  of  Roman  justice. 
with  which  Mr.  Renan  is  so  well  pleased. 
Paul  pleads  his  being  a  Roman  citizen,  and 
the  captain  was  satisfied  with  keeping  him 
in  custody,  in  chains  of  course.  The  cap- 
tain, however,  was  alarmed  that  he  had  ar- 
rested and  chained  a  Romnn  citizen,  as  if 
that  had  never  happened  before.  There- 
fore the  next  morning  he  called  "  the  chief 
priests  and  all  their  council  "  to  the  castle 
to  ascertain  what  Paul  had  done.  This  is 
certainly  new,  that  a  Roman  officer  sub- 
mitted a  case  to  those  whom  they  had  de- 
prived of  all  jurisdiction  ;  but  Luke  needs 
this  link  to  inform  us  that  Paul  was  ar- 
rested and  transported  to  Cesarea  and  then 
to  Rome,  not  by  Roman  aggressions,  but 


488  ORIGIN  OF 

by  Jewish  instigations.    The  thing  does  not 

sound  likely,  but  Luke  wanted  it  so. 

The  most  childish  piece  of  invention  is 
the  next  following  trial.  It  begins  with 
the  childish  statement  that  the  captain  of 
the  castle,  an  officer  of  inferior  rank,  "  COM- 
MANDED the  chief  priests  and  all  their 
council  to  appear,"  among  them,  of  course, 
the  high  priest.  The  highest  ecclesiastical 
dignitaries  of  a  country,  and  among  them 
the  high  priest  who  was  also  politically  the 
most  important  personage  in  the  land,  are 
commanded  to  appear  before  a  military 
officer  of  a  lower  grade ;  and  they  do  ap- 
pear. The  prisoner  is  not  led  into  the  court 
room ;  the  court  is  brought  before  the  pris- 
oner. Precedents  and  parallel  cases  in 
Jewish  history  can  not  be  found.  This 
council  is  not  the  regular  Sanhedrin  ;  it  is 
the  council  of  priests,  as  in  the  case  of 
Stephen. 

In  the  morning  the  high  priest  and  bis 
council  met  in  the  lower  part  of  the  castle, 
and  Paul  was  placed  before  them.  The 
lawless  proceedings  begin,  not  with  an  ac- 
cusation and  the  testimony,  agreeable  to 
Jewish  law,  Paul  opens  the  court  thus: 
"  Men  and  brethren,  I  have  lived  in  all 
good  conscience  before  God  until  this  day." 
This,  indeed,  looks  much  more  like  Paul 
than  like  Luke,  and  he  most  likely  said  so 
on  some  occasion,  but  not  on  this,  which 
never  took  place.  The  barbarian  of  a  high 
priest,  however,  feels  so  much  excited  at 
this  simple  plea  of  innocence  that  he  com- 


CHRISTIANITY.  489 

mands  somebody  to  smite  Paul  on  the 
mouth.  What  a  rude,  uncouth  and  bar- 
barous man  !  and  he  was  the  high  priest  of 
the  Jews — that  is  Luke's  object  in  this  un- 
pleasant interruption,  regardless  of  law, 
custom,  dignity  or  position.  John  in  his 
Gospel  (xviii,  19)  copied  this  entire  scene 
into  the  trial  of  Jesus.  He  applied  it  al- 
most verbatim  to  his  case.  This  informs  us 
that  John  did  not  believe  this  statement  of 
Luke  ;  but  understanding  his  object,  to  aim 
a  blow  at  the  Jews,  he  thought  it  would  do 
just  as  well  in  the  case  of  Jesus  as  in  that 
of  Paul. 

Paul,  who  was  a  lamb  yesterday,  made  a 
mild  and  calm  speech  to  the  populace 
which  beat,  maltreated  and  tried  very 
hard  to  kill  him;  Paul,  forgetful  of  his 
master's  words,  "Whoever  shall  smite  thee 
on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other 
also;"  the  prudent  and  sagacious  Paul, 
standing  before  his  judges  with  his  life  in 
jeopardy,  flies  into  a  passion  and  tells  the 
chief  man  of  that  court,  "  God  shall  smite 
thee,  thou  whited  wall :  for  sittest  thou  to 
judge  me  after  the  law  and  commaudest  me 
to  be  smitten  contrary  to  the  law  ?"  Luke 
made  this  part  too  childish.  He  could 
hardly  expect  anybody  to  believe  it. 

But  he  gets  worse  with  every  progressive 
step  in  the  story.  Next  he  tells  us  that  one 
of  the  bystanders  rebuked  Paul,  "  Revilest 
thou  God's  high  priest?"  to  which  Paul  re- 
plied, "  I  wist  not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the 
high  priest :  for  it  is  written,  Thou  shalt 
32 


490  ORIGIN  OF 

not  speak  evil  of  the  ruler  of  thy  people." 
It  may  be,  but  it  is  not  very  likely,  that 
Paul,  having  been  several  days  about  the 
temple,  did  not  know  the  high  priest,  or  he 
told  a  falsehood  in  self-defence.  It  may  be, 
although  it  is  not  very  likely,  that  Paul 
considered  it  necessaiy  to  quote  a  Mosaic 
law  to  his  self-incrimination,  and  before 
men  who  are  natural^  supposed  to  know 
the  law.  But  it  is  utterly  improbable  that 
Paul  before  that  council  should  make  a 
misquotation.  Moses  said  (Exodus  xxii, 
28,)  "Thou  shalt  not  revile  God  (Elohhn,} 
nor  shah  thou  curse  the  prince  of  thy 
people."  The  quotation  is  Luke's  and  not 
Paul's. 

The  council  took  no  further  notice  of 
Paul's  behavior,  no  trial  followed,  no  legal 
proceedings  were  had,  Paul  played  them  a 
trick,  and  that  with  a  noble  Roman  step- 
ping between  the  parties,  settled  the  ques- 
tion. "  Paul  perceived  that  the  one  party 
were  Sadducees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,'' 
says  Luke,  without  informing  us  how  he 
ascertained  this  fact ;  and  he  said,  "  I  am  a 
Pharisee,  the  son  of  a  Pharisee:  of  the 
hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am 
called  in  question."  Luke's  moral  concep- 
tion was  rather  poor,  we  have  seen  on 
former  occasions;  but  to  make  a  liar  of 
Paul  is  a  little  too  bad.  Paul,  who  argued 
with  might  and  main  against  the  law,  said 
he  was  a  Pharisee.  This  is  a  bare-faced 
falsehood,  which  Paul  could  not  have  said. 
Standing  accused  from  the  start  of  this 


CHRISTIANITY.  491 

affair  of  having  preached  against  the  law 
and  the  temple,  and  having  brought  an 
unoircumcised  Gentile  into  the  temple, 
Paul  says  he  was  accused  on  account  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  This  is  another 
falsehood  which  Paul  could  not  have  said. 
But  the  fun  of  the  thing  is,  the  judges  did 
not  know  of  what  the  prisoner  was  accused, 
that  is  original,  and  hearing  him  speak  of 
the  resurrection,  Ihe  Pharisees  jumped  up 
in  his  favor,  and  ncpc  one  of  Luke's  favor- 
ite rows  ensues  in  the  very  grave  council 
of  the  high  priest,  which  a  noble  Roman 
closes  quite  dramatically  by  the  soldiers 
taking  Paul  away.  The  Sadducees  and 
Pharisees  of  the  council  are  supposed  not 
only  to  have  been  ignorant  of  Paul's  career 
and  the  charges  against  him,  the  scribes 
are  also  brought  in,  and  the  melee  becomes 
amusing  and  ludicrous. 

Luke  had  no  more  knowledge  of  a  high 
priest  and  his  court  than  he  had  of  the 
man  in  the  moon,  ar.d  did  not  know  how 
to  make  his  story  appear  aiiy  way  palpable 
or  probable  at  least.  He  tells  a  coarse  fic- 
tion in  a  coarse  manner.  The  story  could 
have  transpired  thus :  ^nul  having  been 
arrested  as  the  ring  leader  of  a  tumult, 
plead  innocence  before  the  Roman  captain. 
The  Asiatic  JPWS,  most  likely  arrested  with 
him,  may  have  testified  against  him  that 
he  traveled  as  ail  agitator  over  Asia  Minor, 
proclaiming  the  Messiah.  This  induced 
the  captain  to  send  him  away  to  the  pro- 
curator who  resided  in  Cesarea.  Whether 
32* 


492  ORIGIN  OF 

the  high  priest  had  a  hand  in  it,  we  will 
decide  below,  after  we  shall  know  who  this 
ANANIAS  was.  Thus  much,  however,  it  is 
easy  to  decide,  that  the  trial  before  the  high 
priest  is  a  fiction. 

Paul  made  up  his  mind  in  the  night  to 
appeal  to  the  emperor,  which  Luke  tells  us 
(Acts  xxiii,  12,)  in  the  form  of  a  vision. 
His  situation  was  a  desparate  one.  If  one- 
tenth  of  the  public  disturbances  which 
Paul's  mission  created  in  the  various  pro- 
vinces was  true  and  known  to  the  imperial 
officers  of  Judea.  he  necessarily  must  have 
been  considered  a  dangerous  agitator,  es- 
pecially as  his  Messianic  doctrine  had,  to 
the  uninitiated  at  least,  so  much  the  appear- 
ance of  a  political  scheme.  In  the  loyal 
provinces,  the  Roman  authorities  were  not 
so  easily  alarmed  by  disturbances  like 
those  of  Ephesus,  Corinth  and  elsewhere. 
But  in  Judea,  the  ever  rebellious  province, 
the  imperial  officers  were  much  more  sensi- 
tive and  much  easier  alarmed.  Felix  alone 
had  thousands  crucified,  impostors,  rob- 
bers, scarii  and  their  followers,  any  body 
almost  who  submitted  not  to  Rome's  au- 
thority, or  who  had  a  new  idea  to  promul- 
gate. Paul  Tfas  considered  harmless  in 
other  provinces,  but  in  Judea  he  must  have 
appeared  a  dangerous  agitator  in  the  eyes 
of  the  jealous  and  vigilant  Romans.  Hav- 
ing renounced  his  people  and  denounced 
the  law,  the  covenant,  and  the  circumcision , 
ho  could  expect  enmity  only  from  the  Jew- 
ish authorities,  and  very  little  favor  from 


CHRISTIANITY.  493 

the  people,  a  tact  which  Luke  know,  and 
tried  to  represent,  in  his  own  wa\,  by  rows, 
speeches,'  trials  and  a  noble  Roman.  He 
had  nothing  to  expect  of  the  Jew  Chris- 
tians, partly  they  were  powerless,  and 
partly,  or  probably  chiefly,  they  hated 
Paul's  innovations.  Not  one  of  them  shows 
his  face  any  where  during  the  trials  and 
the  captivity  of  Paul.  Not  a  word  was 
spoken,  not  a  measure  adopted,  according 
to  the  sources  before  us,  in  favor  of  the 
great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  by  the  Jew 
Christians.  This  silence  is  ominous.  Much 
more  so,  however,  is  the  utter  silence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  of  all  the  angels,  and  of 
all  miracles.  Luke  does  not  tell  us  the 
whole  truth  in  this  matier;  his  silence, 
however,  otters  us  a  fair  opportunity 
to  peep  behind  the  curtain,  and  inquire  with 
astonishment,  where  were  those  thousands 
of  Jewish  Christians,  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
angels,  and  all  the  miracles,  during  the 
troubles  of  Paul?  Nowhere!  It  appears 
they  felt  no  particular  regret  for  being  re- 
lieved of  a  dangerous  innovator,  so  that  one 
is  almost  tempted  to  believe  the  Jews  from 
Asia  who  betrayed  Paul  were  Christians. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  Christian  legend  on 
record  that  one  of  the  apostles  killed  Paul. 
Having  met  his  opponents  a  few  days  pre- 
viously in  the  synod,  Paul  must  have 
known  that  he  had  as  little  to  expect  of  the 
Christians  as  he  had  of  the  Roman  or  the 
Jewish  authorities.  He  must  have  dreaded 
the  high  priest  most,  for  which  he  had  un- 


494  ORIGIN  OF 

doubtedly  the  best  founded  reason.  But 
we  can  not  explain  this  poiat  before  we 
know  who  that  Ananias  actually  was, 
which  we  must  deft-r  a  little.  All  these 
points  must  have  been  well  known  to  Paul, 
therefore  he  could  do  but  one  thing,  appeal 
to  the  emperor.  He  was  a  Roman  citizen, 
so  this  appeal  was  his  unquestionable  right. 

In  the  morning,  Paul  was  informed  of  a 
conspiracy  against  his  life.  His  sister's  son 
informed  him  and  then  also  the  captain  of 
the  castle,  that  during  the  night  about  forty 
Jews  banded  together  and.  swore  an  oath  to 
assassinate  Paul.  They  had  an  under- 
standing "  with  the  chief  priests  and  el- 
ders," that  they  should  try  Paul  in  their 
court-room,  so  that  he  be  brought  out  of 
the  castle,  aud  they  should  have  au  oppor- 
tunity to  kill  him.  Here  the  questions  rise, 
how  did  "  Paul's  sister's  son  "  ascertain  so 
quickly  the  existence  of  that  conspiracy, 
as,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  thing,  it  must 
have  been  done  secretly  ?  Did  that  informer 
actually  know  or  did  he  only  suppose  to 
know  the  existence  of  that  plot?  Did  the 
informer  actually  say  so,  or  did  Luke  state 
it  on  his  own  authority  ?  The  understand- 
ing with  the  "chief  priests  and  elders" 
looks  suspicious.  It  is  not  at  all  likely 
that  the  principal  men  of  a  nation  enter 
into  a  plot  with  assassins.  It  appears  much 
more  likely  that  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  " 
imitated  the  assassination  plot  of  Felix 
against  the  high  priest  Jonathan  which 


CHRISTIANITY.  495 

Joseph  us  narrates.*  Luke  may  have  writ- 
ten this  story,  which  he  repeats  afterward, 
to  justify  the  apprehensions  of  Paul,  to  be 
tried  before  a  court  of  his  own  countrymen 
and  by  the  laws  of  his  own  people.  He 
must  have  known  that  Paul  sharply  re- 
buked the  Corinthians,  (I  Cor.  vi,)  because 
"  brother  goeth  to  law  with  brother,  and 
that  before  the  unbelievers,"  and  not  before 
their  own  coreligionists;  why  is  he  now 
guilty  of  the  same  offence  which  he  con- 
demns so  emphatically  with  the  Corin- 
thians? He  must  have  known  further- 
more the  just  prejudices  of  the  Jews  against 
the  Roman  courts  of  justice,  how  empha- 
tically they  condemned  an  appeal  to  them, 
(on1?;?  nwo->>')  and  how  fully  Paul  endorsed 
this  prejudice.  He  must  have  known  that 
an  appeal  to  the  emperor  was  an  insult  to 
the  nation,  and  must  have  roused  the  in- 
dignatiou  of  the  Jews  and  the  Jew  Chris- 
tians ;  therefore  Luke,  or  Paul's  sister's 
son,  may  have  invented  this  assassination 
plot,  especially  to  justify  Paul's  step  be- 
fore the  Jewish  Christians.  The  materials 
were  on  hand  in  the  Felix  and  Jonathan 
affair.  Nevertheless  the  story  may  be  true. 
Paul  undoubtedly  had  plenty  of  fanatical 
enemies  among  Jews  and  Jew  Christians. 
The  high  priest  himself  may  have  been 
eager  to  get  Paul  out  of  the  way.  Espe- 
cially after  his  appeal  to  the  emperor  had 
become  known  among  the  community,  his 
death  must  have  appeared  to  many  pre- 

*  Antiquities  xx,  viii..». 


496  ORIGIN  OF 

ferable  to  a  denunciation  or  an  accusation 
against  the  Hebrew  people  before  the  em- 
peror. 

Paul  left  Jerusalem  a  captive  under  the 
protection  of  two  hundred  and  seventy  sol- 
diers, and  the  thousands  of  Christians  did 
not  rescue  him.  He  went  to  Antipatris  and 
thence  to  Cesarea,  where  he  appeared  be- 
fore the  governor  or  procurator  of  Judea, 
the  highest  Roman  officer  of  the  province. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  quotes  a  num- 
ber ol  Roman  names  and  official  docu- 
ments, such  as  the  letter  of  the  captain  to 
the  governor  (Acts  xxiii,  26,)  which  some 
accept  as  authentic,  although  they  are  not, 
and  Luke  himself  says  in  regard  to  that 
letter,  that  it  was  written  "  after  this  man- 
ner," hence  not  literally  so.  There  is  no 
reason  why  Luke  should  not  have  copied 
the  original  letter,  it  he  had  been  in  posses- 
sio'n  thereof.  The  same  is  the  case  with  all 
the  speeches  up  to  the  twenty-seventh 
chapter,  where  the  "We  "  writer  is  again 
quoted.  Luke  had  no  original  of  either 
before  him  in  writing  "  The  Acts."  If  such 
historical  documents  had  been  in  existence 
in  the  imperial  archive  at  Cesarea,  Jose- 
phus  or  Tacitus  must  have  known  and  said 
something  about  the  former  at  the  occasion 
of  the  death  of  James,  and  the  latter  in  his 
notice  on  the  Christians  under  Nero.  If 
those  documents  had  been  in  the  hands  of 
Paul— but  we  can  not  see  how  he  could  get 
them,  or  rather  if  those  trials  had  been  as 
Luke  describes  them — Paul  must  have  said 


CHRISTIANITY.  497 

something  about  them  in  his  epistles  written 
from  the  prison  at  Cesarea,  or  from  Rome. 
There  exists  not  the  slightest  proof  that 
the  historical  documents  and  names  men- 
tioned in  this  connection  are  not  the  inven- 
tions of  Luke.  We  have  proof  positive, 
however,  that  either  the  name  of  Ananias, 
the  high  priest,  or  the  names  of  Felix  and 
Festus  must  be  dropped  as  unhistorical  in 
this  connection. 

The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  states  re- 
peatedly that  the  high  priest  before  whom 
Paul  was  tried  was  called  Ananias.  Jose- 
phus  mentions  three  high  priests  of  the 
same  name.  The  first  is  Annas  or  A  nan  us, 
the  son  of  Seth,  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
crucifixion  story,  in  connection  with  his 
son-in-law,  Josephus  Caiaphas,  the  fourth 
high  priest  after  the  former.  The  second 
is  Ananias,  the  son  of  Nebedeus,  appointed 
by  Herod.  King  of  Chalcis,  when  Cumanus 
succeeded  Tiberius  Alexander,  as  governor 
of  Judea,  about  48  A.  0.  (Joseph.  Antiquit. 
xx,  v,  2.)  The  third  is  Anauus,  the  son  of 
Arianus,  who  was  high  priest  when  Albinus 
came  to  Palestine,  under  whose  procura- 
torship  James  w^as  slain,  about  62  A.  C. 
(Ibid,  xx,  ix,  1.)  Of  which  of  these  three 
could  Luke  possibly  think  ?  He  could  not 
think  of  the  first  who  was  already  deposed 
when  Jesus  was  crucified,  and  figures  only 
on  the  side  of  Caiaphas  who  was  the  high 
priest  then.  He  could  not  think  of  the 
second,  because  he  comes  in  connection 
with  Tiberius  Alexander  and  Cumanus, 


498  ORIGIN  OF 

and  especially  with  Herod,  King  of  Chal- 
cis,  who  appointed  him,  and  the  death  of 
Herod  is  mentioned  in  "  The  Acts  "  (xii,  23) 
as  having  occurred  previous  to  Paul's  jour- 
neys. This  second  Ananias  is  the  high 
priest  who  figures  in  the  first  persecutions 
of  Peter,  John  and  the  others,  about  48  to 
50  A.  C.  Herod  died  49  A.  C.  So  he  could 
only  think  of  the  third  Ananus,  Annas  or 
Ananias  which  are  synonyms. 

None  of  these  three  high  priests  were 
cotemporaneous  with  Felix,  who  was  gov- 
ernor of  Judea  for  nine  years  between  51 
and  60  A.  C.  The  high  priest,  on  whose 
recommendation  Felix  was  made  procura- 
tor of  Judea,  was  Jonathan,  the  same  whom 
Felix  had  afterward  assassinated  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  xx,  viii,  5)  and  this  Jonathan  was 
the  successor  of  Ananias,  if  Josephus 
omitted  none  between  them.  But  if  Jona- 
than even  succeeded  Ananias  in  the  be- 
ginning of  Felix's  administration,  which 
is  quite  unlikely,  as  Josephus  expressly 
states,  "He  (Jonathan)  it  was  who  had  de- 
sired Caesar  to  send  him  (Felix)  as  procura- 
tor of  Judea,"  which  influence  with  the 
emperor  could  be  expected  only  of  the  high 
priest— still  if  we  lay  no  stress  upon  this 
and  admit  that  Ananias  was  high  priest 
when  Felix  came  to  Judea  ;  it  does  not 
change  the  case,  for  Jonathan  must  have 
soon  followed  him,  and  Paul  is  supposed 
to  have  been  before  Felix  toward  the  end 
of  his  administration.  Again  Jonathan 
was  slain  long  before  the  sedition  tinder 


CHRISTIANITY.  499 

the  prophet  from  Egypt,  as  Josephus  in- 
forms us,  (ibid  6)  and  Paul  was  arrested 
long  after  that  event,  as  the  author  of 'The 
Acts"  tells.  (Acts  xxi,  38.)  Therefore 
Jonathan,  the  successor  of  Ananias,  was 
dead  long  before  the  trial  of  Paul.  The 
successor  of  Jonathan  was  Ismael,  son  of 
Fabi,  appointed  by  Agrippa.  This  Ismael 
outlived  the  administration  of  Felix,  be- 
cause Josephus  narrates  (ibid,  xx,  viii, 
11)  that  he  was  high  priest  in  the  time  of 
Festus,  Felix's  successor,  and  was  of  the 
ten  deputies  sent  to  Nero  from  Jerusalem, 
and  was  retained  th0re  with  Helcias  as 
hostages  to  gratify  the  piety  of  Poppea, 
the  wife  of  Nero  and  patroness  of  the  Jews. 
Next  Agrippa  appointed  Joseph  Cabi  high 
priest ;  but  when  Festus  died,  Agrippa 
deposed  Joseph  Cabi  and  appointed  the 
Sadducee  Ananns,  son  of  Ananus  who  slew 
James  (ibid.  xx.  ix,  1.)  The  high  priests 
with  Felix  were  Jonathan  and  Tsmael,  son 
of  Fabi,  and  with  Festus  and  Joseph  Cabi, 
no  Ananias  and  no  Ananus.  Therefore 
either  the  Ananias  or  the  Felix  and  Festus 
in  the  accounts  of  "  The  Acts  "  must  be 
dropped  as  unhistorical. 

Which  must  be  dropped  ?  According  to 
the  chronology  which  we  established  above, 
we  must  drop  Felix  and  Festus  and  retain 
Ananias  in  Luke's  accounts.  We  placed  the 
conversion  of  Paul  about  50  A.  C.  He  gives 
us  the  date  of  fourteen  years  from  his  con- 
version to  his  second  visit  in  Jerusalem, 
when  he  was  captured.  The  numbers 


500  ORIGIN  OF 

three,  five,  seven  aud  their  multiples  must 
never  be  taken  exactly  with  Paul  or  any 
ancient  writer.  He  mentions  the  same 
number  fourteen  (II  Cor.  xii,  l)in  pointing 
back  to  the  day  of  his  conversion,  and  this 
was  written  in  Macedonia,  a  few  weeks  be- 
fore his  arrival  in  Jerusalem.  Therefore 
the  congregation  of  Antioch  was  estab- 
lished in  52  or  53  A.  0.,  after  which  he 
traveled  about  ten  years,  and  then  he  came 
to  Jerusalem  about  03  A.  C.,  exactly  when 
Auanus  was  high  priest  and  Albinus  was 
governor. 

Besides,  however,  \ve  have  other  reasons 
for  this  preference.  They  are  the  follow- 
ing: 

1.  This  Ananus  was  a  known  fanatic. 
He  had  slain  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus 
and  some  of  his  companions,  after  a  sham 
trial  before  a  sanhedrin  of  his  creatures, 
on  the  accusation  "  as  breakers  of  the  law." 
Against  this  act  of  violence  "  the  most 
equitable  of  the  citizens  and  such  as  were 
the  most  uneasj7  at  the  breach  of  the  laws," 
as  Josephus  informs  us  (Antiq.  xx.  ix,  1,) 
raised  a  loud  and  emphatic  protest  before 
Agrippa  and  also  before  Albinus.  This 
fanatic  may  also  have  persecuted  Paul, 
only  that  he  lacked  the  power  to  do  him 
any  harm.  This  changes  the  general  as- 
pect of  the  state  of  affairs,  but  it  shows  us 
the  probability  that  the  high  priest  perse- 
cuted Paul  contrary  to  the  laws  of  his  coun- 
try and  against  the  will  of  the  better  class 
of  his  people. 


: 

CHRISTIANITY.  501 

2.  Paul's  arrest  took  place  after  the  exe- 
cution  of  James.     For   had    James,    the 
brother  of   Jesus,  been   alive,    he  would 
have  been  the  head  of  the  apostolic  congre- 
gation.    In  this   case  the  author  of  "  The 
Acts  "  would  not  have  said   plainly  (Acts 
xxi,  18)  the  synod  took  place  in  the  house 
of  James,  he  must  have  added,  the  brother 
of  Jesus,  as  there  were  three  of  the  same 
name  in  the  apostolic  college.    Still  if  the 
author  of  ««  The  Acts  »  had  forgotten   this 
explanatory  phrase,    Paul  himself   could 
not  well  forget  it  (Galat  .ii,  9)  since  he  bases 
his  apostolic  authority  upon  the  three  men, 
whom  he  names  there,   viz  :  James,  Peter 
and  John  ;  especially  as  he  does  not  forget 
to  mention  "  the  brother  of  the  Lord  "  (ibid, 
i,  19)  in  speaking  of  his  first  visit  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  on  other  occasions.    The  James 
we  find  at  the  time  at  the  head  of  the  apos- 
tolic congregation  is  the  same  who  figures 
in  the  Talmud  as  the  representative  of  the 
congregation   under    the   name    of  Jacob 
(James)  of  Capersamia,  who  was  still  alive 
in  the  days  of  Trajan,  and  was  the  author  of 
the  epistle  which  bears  his  name. 

3.  Had  Paul    been   accused  by  the  high 
priest  before  Felix  or    before    Festus,    of 
being  "  a  mover  of  sedition  among  all  the 
Jews  throughout  the   world,  and   a   ring 
leader  of  the  sect  of  the   Nazarenes  " — no 
appeal  to  all  the  emperors  living  or  dead 
would  have  saved  his  life.    Those  two  pro- 
curators were  insatiable  hyenas,  in   com- 
parison to  whom  all   the  grand  inquisitors 


502  ORIGIN  OF 

of  bloody  memory  were  benign  lambkins. 
Whoever  dared  to  express  an  idea  or  do 
anything  not  agreeable  to  the  notions  of 
the  procurator  was  a  prophet,  an  impostor 
or  a  robber,  and  he  was  sure  to  be  crucified 
or  his  life  was  otherwise  disposed  of.  With 
those  men  it  was  not  avarice  which 
prompted  them  to  those  diabolic  crimes  ;  it 
was  the  usual  design  of  tyrants  to  spread 
terror  and  to  enforce  unconditional  sub- 
mission, coupled  with  a  bloodthirsty  dis- 
position. Josephus,  being  an  eye-witness 
of  that  terrible  time,  must  have  known 
correctly  the  unnatural  crimes  of  those 
procurators,  and  writing,  as  he  did,  under 
the  very  eyes  of  the  Roman  aristocracy, 
has  certainly  not  overwrought  them. 
Nevertheless  every  paragraph  of  his  his- 
tory concerning  those  men  tills  one  with 
abhorrence  against  those  inexorable  ty- 
rants, who  were  reckless,  merciless,  with- 
out any  human  feeling  for  the  people.  Had 
Paul  been  delivered  into  their  hands,  with 
the  accusation  of  sedition  made  by  the 
high  priest,  no  earthly  power  could  have 
saved  his  life. 

4.  The  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  ascribes  the 
long  retention  of  Paul  in  Cesarea  to  avarice. 
He  says,  "  He  (Felix)  hoped  also  that 
money  should  be  given  him  of  Paul  that 
he  might  loose  him  :  wherefore  he  sent  for 
him  the  oftener,  and  communed  with  him." 
All  this  looks  more  like  Albinus  than 
Felix.  "Albinus  concealed  his  wicked- 
ness, and  was  careful  that  it  might  not  be 


CHRISTIANITY. 


503 


discovered  to  all  men  "  (Joseph,  xx,  xi,  1.) 
Upon  the  petition  of  the  Jews,  after  James 
had  been  slain,  "Albinus  complied  with 
what  they  said,  and  wrote  in  anger  to 
Ananus,  and  threatened  that  he  would 
bring  him  to  punishment  for  what  he  had 
done."  (Ibid,  xx,  ix,  1.)  Money  was  the 
main  object  of  Albinus.  He  took  money 
of  almost  any  body,  of  the  deposed  high 
priest  Ananias  (ibid.  3  ;)  of  the  robbers  and 
other  prisoners  (ibid.  5.)  He  was  so  avari- 
cious that  he  robbed  with  the  robbers  and 
was  an  arch-robber  himseVf.  (Wars  ii,  xiv, 
1.)  This  is  the  man  of  whom  it  might  nat- 
urally be  expected  that  he  protected  Paul, 
and  that  he  expected  money  of  him. 

"  But  after  two  years  "  (Acts  xxiv.  27) 
points  not  lo  Paul's  having  been  two  years 
in  prison,  it  points  rather  to  the  two  years 
of  Albiuus.  He  was  governor  but  two 
years. 

We  can  not  tell  how  Luke  came  to  make 
this  mistake,  but  a  mistake  it  certainly  is, 
by  the  correction  of  which  the  whole  affair 
adjusts  itself  into  a  historical  shape.  Paul 
went  to  Jerusalem  after  James  and  bis 
companions  had  been  executed,  therefore 
the  precaution  of  the  apostlf  s,  the  voice  of 
the  disciples  and  the  prophet  to  Paul,  not  to 
go  there.  He  was  arrested  by  the  Romans 
on  the  accusation  of  some  Asiatic  Jews, 
and  knowing,  as  he  did,  the  wickedness  of 
Ananias,  he  appealed  to  the  emperor  and 
was  sent  to  Cesarea.  Luke  who  was  well 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  law-abiding  Jews 


504  ORIGIN  OF 

who  were  so  much  opposed  to  the  execution 
of  James,  must  also  have  been  opposed  to 
doing  any  wrong  to  Paul ;  but  he  would 
not  tell  it  in  plain  words.  He  prefers  writ- 
ing the  farce  of  a  trial  to  reach  the  same 
object  by  a  row  among  Sadducees  and 
Pharisees  in  the  council.  This  brings  us 
again  to  Cesarea,  but  not  before  Felix  ;  it 
brings  us  before  Albinus  with  Paul  and 
Ananias. 

Five  days  after  Paul  had  arrived  in  Oe- 
sarea,  his  accusers  made  their  appearance. 
Ananias,  the  high  priest,  with  the  elders, 
and  an  orator  named  Tertullus,  were  the 
persons  who  accused  him  to  be  "  a  mover 
of  sedition  among  all  the  Jews  throughout 
the  world,  and  a  ring  leader  of  the  sect  of 
the  Nazarenes  :  Who  also  hath  gone  about 
to  profane  the  temple;"  to  which  "the 
Jews  also  assented,"  meaning  those  who 
had  come  with  the  high  priest.  The  fact 
that  a  speaker  was  deemed  necessary  shows 
that  the  governor  was  a  stranger  to  them, 
hence  it  was  not  Felix.  The  charge  of  sedi- 
tion among  all  the  Jews  throughout  the  world 
is  absurd,  and  could  never  have  been  made 
officially.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  we  have  no  originals  before  us;  we 
read  what  Luke  thought  proper  to  tell  us. 
Another  absurdity  in  the  case  is  that  the 
accusers  came  without  witnesses. 

Paul's  speech  is  the  production  of  Luke, 
with  some  sentences  from  Paul.  Paul 
could  not  have  said  that  he  "believed  all 
things  which  were  written  in  the  law  and 


CHRISTIANITY.  505 

in  the  prophets,"  when  the  abrogation  of 
the  law  was  one  of  his  principal  objects. 
Nor  could  he  have  said,  *'  Now,  after  many 
years,  I  came  to  bring  alms  to  rny  nation, 
and  offerings,"  when  the  object  of  his  com- 
ing was  quite  another,  and  he  was  opposed 
to  all  offerings,  which  means  sacrifices  in 
the  temple.  The  fact  is,  he  denied  all  their 
charges  and  admitted  only  one  point,  viz: 
that  he  was  a  Christian.  "  The  way  which 
they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God  of 
my  fathers."  The  governor  adjourned  the 
case,  to  be  informed  of  the  captain  of  Je- 
rusalem concerning  it  ;  but  the  case  was 
never  tried.  Ananias  was  removed  from 
office  in  consequence  of  the  popular  com- 
plaints  against  his  bloody  fanaticism  (Jo- 
seph. Antiq.  xx,  ix,  1)  and  his  successor 
Jesus,  tne  son  of  Damneus,  did  not  prose- 
cute the  case.  Luke  confesses  this,  but  he 
does  it  in  his  own  peculiar  manner.  He 
has  Paul  brought  before  Agrippa  and  Ber- 
nice,  where  he  must  deliver  a  speech,  which 
he  could  never  have  delivered  on  account 
of  the  Damascus  story,  narrated  again  and 
contradictory  to  former  statements ;  and 
because,  he  says  not  one  word  of  the  case 
itself,  he  only  speaks  of  his  belief  in  Jesus, 
when  he  stood  chiefly  accused  of  sedition 
among  the  Jews  in  preaching  against  the 
law  and  the  temple.  Still  Luke  took  the 
trouble  of  writing  the  speech,  having  it 
delivered  by  Paul,  in  order  to  let  Agrippa 
say  "Almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a 
Christian,"  which  he  most  likely  did  not 
33 


500  ORIGIN  OF 

say.  But  the  governor  and  Agrippa  may 
have  agreed,  "This  man  doeth  nothing 
worthy  of  death  or  bonds,"  and  Agrippa 
may  have  added,  "This  man  might  have 
been  set  at  liberty,  had  he  not  appealed  unto 
Caesar."  If  Agrippa  said  so,  the  high  priest 
would  not  say  otherwise,  for  he  appointed 
and  removed  the  high  priests.  Neverthe- 
less Paul  was  afraid  of  a  trial  before  the 
priests,  for  Ananias,  though  no  longer 
high  priest,  was  a  mighty  man  and  a  friend 
of  the  governor.  (Ibid.  2.)  Paul  had  many 
enemies  in  Jerusalem,  no  doubt,  and  he 
could  have  no  confidence  in  his  fellow 
Christians  who  did  nothing  for  him.  From 
his  prison  in  Cesarea,  loaded  with  chains, 
he  thundered  against  them,  with  unre- 
served anger,  standing  lirinly  by  his  own 
Gospel,  and  denouncing  them  in  the  lan- 
guage of  an  offended  man.  Besides  all  this 
he  had  appealed  to  Caesar  right  at  the  begin- 
ning, and  he  would  not  change  his  opinion 
now.  He  had  been  retained  in  Cesarea 
by  a  mercenary  governor  who  speculated 
on  his  purse;  but  in  vain.  Another  gov- 
ernor came,  and  he  was  sent  to  Rome  65 
A.  C. 

This  appeal  to  Csesar  must  have  estranged 
him  to  the  Hebrew  people,  both  to  Jews 
and  Christians.  It  was  contrary  to  his  own 
doctrine  preached  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
very  offensive  to  the  Hebrews.  He  ali*in- 
ated  himself  from  his  people.  It  appears 
to  us  that  he  took  this  step  deliberately  and 
purposely,  in  order  to  appear  before  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  507 

Gentiles  alienated  from  his  people,  to  stand 
among  them  as  one  of  them,  free  of  their 
prejudices  against  the  Jews  and  their  laws. 
Having  nothing  to  expect  from  the  apos- 
tolic congregation,  he  threw  himself  en- 
tirely into  the  embrace  of  his  Gentile 
friends.  This  is  evident  from  the  epistles 
which  he  wrote  from  Cesarea  and  from 
Rome,  in  which  he  is  most  violent  against 
his  colleagues  in  Jerusalem,  and  most  out- 
sfjoken  against  the  law,  circumcision  and 
everything  Jewish. 

Tacitus  is  our  testimony  that  Paul  did 
not  reach  Rome  before  the  spring  of  G5  A. 
C.  He  must  have  come  there  in  the  days 
of  the  emperor  Nero,  either  shortly  before 
the  conflagration  of  Rome  (Christian  chro- 
nologists  waver  between  62  or  63  A.  C.)  or 
a  considerable  time  after  it.  If  the  testi- 
mony of  Tacitus*  deserves  credit,  the  early 
Christians  were  considered  in  Rome  "  a 
race  of  men  detested  for  their  evil  prac- 
tices," on  account  ot  their  belief  in  "  a  dan- 
gerous superstition,"  and  it  was  dangerous 
to  the  Roman  paganism,  so  that  it  appears 
quite  natural  that  it  supposed  the  primitive 
Christians  harbored  "  a  sullen  hatred  of  the 
whole  human  race."  Under  such  circum- 
stances, it  is  quite  natural  to  suppose  that  no 
Christian  congregation  existed  in  Rome, 
and  nobody  had  undertaken  it  publicly  to 
promulgate  Christianity,  although  many 
Christians  from  Judea  and  other  Roman 
provinces  had  come  to  the  capital.  Many 

*Annals  xv,  xliv. 
33* 


508  ORIGIN  OF 

years  after  this,  the  Christian  congregation 
as  such  was  unknown  in  Rome  ;  it  was  a 
secret  society  known  publicly  as  a  burial 
association.  Had  Paul  been  brought  be- 
fore Nero  before  or  shortly  after  the  conflag- 
ration, and  accused  as  THE  promulgates  of 
Christianity  among  the  Gentiles,  thus  much 
is  certain,  nothing  could  have  saved  his 
head.  The  process  would  have  been  brief 
and  Neronic ;  death  was  inevitable.  But 
after  the  conflagration,  when  Nero,  on  the 
evidence  "  of  profligate  and  abandoned 
wretches,"  not  only  put  to  death  many 
Christians,  in  his  own  gardens,  "  with  ex- 
quisite cruelty,"  but  also  added  to  their 
sufferings  "  mockery  and  derision,"  then, 
as  is  almost  invariably  the  case  under 
such  circumstances,  "the  cruelty  of  these 
proceedings  filled  every  breast  with  com- 
passion. Humanity  relented  in  favor  of 
the  Christians."  Therefore  only  after  the 
Neronic  persecution  it  is  possible  that  Paul 
was  permitted  to  live  in  his  own  hired 
house  in  Rome,  unmolested  by  the  author- 
ities, and  to  escape  unhurt  from  the  hands 
of  Nero. 

It  is  one  of  the  strangest  errors  of  Chris- 
tian critics,  having  before  themselves  two 
authentic  statements,  the  one  of  Josephus, 
that  the  better  class  of  Jews  condemned 
the  unjust  proceedings  of  Ananias  and  his 
co-adjutors  against  James  and  the  Chris- 
tians, and  the  other  of  Tacitus,  that  the 
Romans  did  hate  the  new  Christians,  ac- 
quiesced in  their  torments,  in  the  unparal- 


CHRISTIANITY.  509 

leled  barbarity  of  Nero  against  them, 
until  it  became  too  shocking,  and  they 
were  led  to  believe  that  those  Christians 
"  fell  a  sacrifice,  not  for  the  public  good, 
but  to  glut  the  rage  and  Cruelty  of  one  man 
only  :"  and  knowing-,  as  they  must,  that 
these  two  statements  can  not  be  disre- 
garded ;  nevertheless  they  credit  the  state- 
ments of  the  author  of*  The  Acts,''  accord- 
ing to  which  the  Jews,  and  the  Jews  only, 
persecuted  the  nascent  Christians,  and  the 
Romans  in  all  cases  protected  them,  so  that 
even  wicked  Felix  becomes  a  saint  almost 
in  the  hands  of  Luke.  How  is  it  possible, 
we  ask  with  surprise,  that  those  critics  did 
not  see  that  Luke's  aim  was  to  gain  the 
favor  of  the  Romans  for  Christianity? 
They  having  crucified  Jesus,  as  Tacitus 
states,  and  began  to  deify  him  in  the  days 
of  Luke,  they  having  slaughtered  so  many 
Christians,  to  whom  they  afterward  looked 
np  as  great  teachers  and  martyrs,  Luke  at- 
tempted to  persuade  them  that  their  patri- 
cian ancestors  were  admirers  of  J<-su«  and 
his  disciples,  of  Paul  and  his  followers, 
and  protected  them  against  the  violence  and 
wickedness  of  the  Jews.  It  is  a  mystery 
to  us  how  critics  could  possibly  overlook 
this  fact. 

Tn  the  spring  tin  A.  C..  Paul  was  sent  to 
Rome, in  company'  with  other  prisoners.  The 
main  notices  concerning  that  voyage  the 
author  of  "The  Acts"  copied  from  the 
"We  "  writer.  He  embellishes  them,  how- 
ever, with  childish  miracles,  being  bent 


510  ORIGIN  OF 

upon  making  a  quack  and  a  juggler  of 
every  one  of  his  heroes.  Paul  prophesied, 
healed  the  sick,  was  wonderfully  saved  in 
the  storm,  and  did  plenty  of  miracles  to 
counterbalance  Peter's  reputation.  The 
story  of  the  serpent,  which  "fastened  on 
Paul's  hand  "  and  which  "he  shook  into 
the  fire  and  felt  no  harm,"  we  have 
stated  above,  is  taken  from  a  rabbinical 
tale  of  Rabbi  Hauiuah  ben  Dosa  and  the 
venomous  serpent  which  died  by  biting  the 
rabbi's  heel.  The  brief  notes  of  his  jour- 
ney to  Rome  are  void  of  interest,  except  to 
the  ecclesiastical  historiographer.  He  ar- 
rived safely  in  Rome,  was  met  by  brothers, 
and  without  any  trial  or  molestation,  he 
"dwelt  two  whole  years  in  his  own  hired 
house,  and  received  all  that  came  in  unto 
him."  He  preached  his  doctrines  privately 
to  his  visitors,  "  no  man  forbidding  him." 
This  could  only  have  been  the  case  after  the 
Neronian  persecution,  when  the  people  be- 
gan to  sympathize  with  the  Christians. 

So  far  the  author  of  "  The  Acts  "  leads 
us  ;  here  his  accounts  end  without  any  clos- 
ing remarks  or  any  form  of  finishing  a 
book.  This  leads  to  the  supposition  that  a 
portion  of  "  The  Acts  "  has  been  lost.  There 
was  a  tradition  in  the  church  that  Paul 
stood  twice  before  Nero  (II  Timothy  iv,  22) 
which,  if  true,  Luke  must  have  mentioned 
and  embellished.  It  was  supposed  that 
Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  if  so, 
Luke  must  have  known  it  and  passed  some 
remarks  on  this  important  event,  especially 


CHRISTIANITY.  511 

as  be  drops  him  rather  unceremoniously 
after  the  death  of  the  fii'*t  James.  Not 
having  been  an  acknowledged  portion  of 
the  Canon  as  late  as  407,  it  is  not  strange  at 
all  that  as  additions  were  made  to  its  nar- 
ratives, portions  of  its  end  especially  may 
have  been  lost,  as  it  actually  appears  to 
have  been  the  case.  The  authors  of  legends 
seized  upon  this  vacuum  and  tilled  the  bal- 
ance of  the  first  century  with  tales  and 
epistles  so  utterly  incredible  and  crude  that 
the  early  Christian  critics  rejected  them. 
It  is  from  sources  of  this  description  that 
the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter  is  de- 
rived. We  will  examine  those  legends  in 
our  next  chapter,  as  also  the  rabbinical 
notes  concerning  Acher  or  Paul,  for  the 
consideration  of  the  historiographer,  whom 
we  hope  to  have  assisted  in  the  separation 
of  the  grain  from  the  chaff  in  the  Christian 
sources.  May  it  also  enlighten  the  teachers 
and  professors  of  religion. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  LAST  DAYS  OF  PAUL. 
The  apocryphal  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  were  excluded  from  the  Scrip- 
tural canon,  because  they  are  pseudony- 
mous; they  were  written  centuries  after 
and  by  other  authors  than  those  whose 
names  are  connected  with  the  respective 
books.  The  cabalistic  writers  of  the  Jews 
have  committed  the  same  frauds  in  pub- 
lishing, from  and  after  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, books  of  Rabbi  Simeon  ben  Yochai, 


512  ORIGIN  OF 

of  Rabbi  Akiba,  of  Moses  and  of  Father 
Abraham,  containing  a  conglomeration  of 
mysteries  which  arc  a  pasquil  on  the  un- 
derstanding. The  cabalists  limited  their 
falsehoods  to  the  angels  and  the  demons, 
aside  of  their  mystic  speculations  on  the- 
ology and  onthology.  Christian  writers 
extended  their  powers  of  invention  also  to 
this  physical  world,  so  that  Ensebius  as- 
sures us  that  some  bodies  of  holy  martyrs 
having  been  devoured  by  M'ild  beasts,  were 
found  alive  and  whole  in  the  very  stomachs 
of  those  beasts,  which  were  strangled  ;*  and 
St.  Augustin,  in  his  thirty-third  sermon-, 
tells  his  audience  that  he,  being  bishop  of 
Hippo  Regius,  had  preached  the  Gospel  to 
a  nation  of  persons  who  had  no  heads,  and 
had  their  eyes  in  their  bosoms,  and  in  coun- 
tries further  South  to  a  people  of  persons 
who  had  but  one  eye  each,  and  that  in  the 
middle  of  the  forehead.  After  the  apostles, 
the  most  terrible  darkness  and  ignorance 
beset  the  Christian  writers,  wrote  very  il- 
literate^7 and  the  most  extravagant  im- 
probabilities. 

The  pious  and  orthodox  Dr.  Mosheim,  in 
his  ecclesiastical  historyf  treating  on  the 
Apocryphies  of  the  New  Testament,  after 
having  informed  us  (xvii)  that  their  Jesus 
stories  were  "full  of  pious  frauds  and  fabu- 
lous wonders,"  whose  writers  "betrayed 
"  the  greatest  superstition  and  ignorance," 
he  continues,  "  Productions  appeared  which 

*Larc!ner.  Eccles.  Hist.  Vol.  4.  p.  <>l. 

.  Histoty  Book  I,  Part  II,  Chap.  II. 


CHRISTIANITY.  513 

were  imposed  upon  the  world  by  fraudu- 
lent men  as  the  writings  of  the  holy  apos- 
tles." Then,  after  having  reviewed  the 
literary  remains  from  the  apostolic  fathers, 
he  conies  to  the  following  conclusion  (xxii): 
"We  may  here  remark  in  general  that  those 
apostolic  fathers  and  the  other  writers,  who, 
in  the  infancy  of  the  church,  employed 
their  pens  in  the  cause  of  Christianity,  were 
neither  remarkable  for  their  learning  nor 
for  their  eloquence.  On  the  contrary,  they 
express  the  most  pious  and  admirable  sen- 
timents in  the  plainest  and  most  illiterate 
style."  Mosheim  thinks  this  quite  an 
honor  to  the  Christian  cause,  and  we  will 
not  dispute  it,  although  we  can  not  tell  how 
those  "  fraudulent,"  "  superstitious,"  "  ig- 
norant "  and  "  illiterate"  men  could  express 
"  the  most  pious  and  admirable  senti- 
ments "  which  were  crystalized  into  the 
Christian  dogmas,  of  which  neither  Paul 
nor  Jesus  had  the  remotest  idea.  It  suffices 
us  to  know  the  utter  worthlessness  of  that 
literature  and  the  spirit  of  fraud,  falsehood, 
ignorance  and  superstition  which,  among 
the  Gentile  Christians,  followed  after  the 
apostles.  Mosheim  labors  under  the  mis- 
take that  the  canonical  Gospels  and  "The 
Acts"  were  compiled  previous  to  that  age 
of  darkness,  which  no  veracious  critic  can 
admit, and  no  intelligent  reader  will  believe. 
That  was  the  very  time  when  the  Gospel 
stories  of  the  apostles  were  collected  by  the 
various  compilers;  therefore  they  arc  as 
they  are. 


514  ORIGIN  OP 

It  is  no  wonder  that  ignorance  and  its 
legitimate  concomitants  among  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  followed  the  preachings  of 
Paul.  He  condemned  all  the  knowledge 
of  the  heathens  as  one  huge  crime  which 
led  them  to  damnation.  This  had  the  effect 
to  separate  them  entirely  from  the  heathen 
culture,  from  Grecian  and  Roman  litera- 
ture, so  that  the  few  literary  persons  who 
may  have  been  converted  by  Paul,  must 
have  denied  their  intimacy  with  heathen 
literature.  Not  one  among  a  thousand  could 
possibly  have  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  of 
which  copies  were  very  scarce,  and  those 
able  to  read  were  still  more  so.  Therefore 
pious  ignorance  was  the  natural  conse- 
quence. The  Gospel  stories  ar.d  the  apos- 
tolic stories  were  told  and  retold,  modeled 
and  remodeled  in  those  days  of  ignorance, 
until  they  finally  appeared  in  their  present 
form.  They  were  selected  from  a  number 
of  compilations,  as  the  best  of  the  whole 
pile,  as  the  least  fraudulent,  least  supersti- 
tious, and  least  illiterate  ;  the  balance  were 
rejected. 

The  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  the  other 
apostles  rests  upon  the  sole  authority  of 
those  rejected  books,  concerning  which  we 
have  quoted  Mosheim's  pious  and  orthodox 
verdict.  There  is  no  cause  whatsoever  to 
believe  any  of  those  statements.  Clement 
Romanus,  the  fifth  bishop  of  Rome,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Philippians,  a  production  de- 
clared spurious  by  Mosheim,  and  the  "Acts 
of  the  Apostles  "  by  Abdias,  a  book  long 


CHRISTIANITY.  515 

ago  rejected  as  fraudulent  and  full  of  false- 
hoods, are  the  sources  upon  which  Doro- 
theus,  bishop  of  Tyre  about  366  A.  C., 
founded  his  "Lives  of  the  Apostles."  He 
says  of  Paul ;  "  He  was  beheaded  at  Rome 
under  Nero,  the  third  kalends  of  July,  so 
died  a  martyr,  and  lieth  there  buried  with 
Peter  the  apostle."  Abdias  says  that  Paul 
was  beheaded,  and  milk  flew  from  his  body 
instead  of  blood. 

All  these  stories  are  perfectly  worthless. 
Paul,  in  his  epistles  written  from  Rome, 
expresses  not  the  remotest  omen  that  his 
life  was  in  danger.  The  closing  lines  of 
"The  Acts  "  suggest  that  he  was  entirely 
unmolested  in  Rome.  Hence  those  who 
added  the  names  of  the  writers  and  the 
place  to  the  epistles,  and  the  author  of  u  The 
Acts,"  could  not  have  believed  in  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Paul. 

Besides,  two  characteristic  points  of 
Paul's  epistles  must  here  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. He  writes  to  established  con- 
gregations with  complete  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganizations, having  elders,deacons,bishops, 
every  thing  complete  and  finished.  This 
could  n<>t  possibly  all  have  been  accom- 
plished in  the  short  period  of  ten  years. 
The  conversion  came  lirst,  the  congrega- 
tional organization  followed  in  the  progress 
of  time.  Most  of  his  epistles  have  no  trace 
that  they  were  written  at  any  time  prior  to 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem. 
The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  written 
after  his  capture  in  Jerusalem,  that  is  cer- 


516  ORIGIN  OF 

tain,  and  it  must  have  been  long  after  that 
event,  for  the  Galatians  had  been  misled 
into  Jewish  Christian  theories,  which  could 
hardly  have  been  done  in  a  short  time,  and 
shortly  before  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  he 
was  in  Galatia  (Acts  xviii,  23.)  In  this 
epistle  already  he  speaks  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  He  says  there  (Gal.  iv,  25,) 
"  Sinai  is  a  mount  in  Arabia  which  is  now 
in  the  same  rank  with  Jerusalem  which  is 
in  bondage  with  her  children."  So  the 
original  reads,  and  this  points  directly  to  a 
time  after  the  destruction  of  that  .city,  when 
it  could  be  compared  to  the  desert  of  Ara- 
bia, and  it  could  be  said  it  was  in  bondage 
with  its  children.  Still  later  IT  Timothy 
was  written,  in  which  he  blesses  Quesi- 
phorus,  who  had  visited  him  in  Rome  and 
was  not  ashamed  of  his  bonds  (5,  15,  16.) 
In  that  same  passage  he  declares  that  all 
Christians  in  Asia  (hence  also  the  Gala- 
tians)  had  deserted  his  Gospel ;  conse- 
quently his  epistle  to  the  Galatians  was 
fruitless.  The  last  words  of  this  epistle 
are  those  of  an  old,  tired,  disappointed  and 
deserted  man  ;  they  must  have  been  writ- 
ten long  after  the  days  of  Nero.  Paul 
writes  to  Timothy,  "  I  am  now  being  offer- 
ed," as  he  called  dying  in  faith,  "  and  the 
time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand.  I  have 
fought  the  good  tight,  I  have  finished  my 
course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  :  Henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  the  crown  of  right- 
eousness," &c.  Then  he  complains  that  all 
but  Luke  had  deserted  him,  therefore  he 


CHRISTIANITY.  517 

requests  Timothy  to  come  to  him  and  bring 
Marc  with  him  before  the  winter.  This  was 
not  written  by  one  condemned  to  death,  for 
he  wants  to  see  Marc,  "  for  he  is  useful  to 
me  in  my  office."  What  offices  has  a  con- 
demned man  to  attend  to?  He  wants  "  the 
t-loak  (or  book-case)  which  he  left  in  Troas, 
the  books  and  the  parchments  ;"  what  good 
are  they  to  a  convicted  man  ?  or  is  it  at  all 
likely  that  the  executioner  would  wait  till 
Timothy  and  Marc  should  arrive  from 
Asia  with  all  those  articles  ?  He  says  fur- 
ther on,  "At  my  first  answer  (responsibility, 
trial  or  defence)  no  man  stood  with  me, but 
all  men  forsook  me."  This  may  refer  to 
his  trials  in  Jerusalem  and  Rome.  The 
Christians  evidently  deserted  him.  Never- 
theless, he  says  as  clear  as  language  can 
convey  it,  he  was  not  lost  in  Rome,  and 
still  lived  after  that  time.  "  Notwithstand- 
ing the  Lord  stood  with  me  and  strength- 
ened me,  that  by  me  the  preaching  might 
be  fully  known  ;  and  that  all  the  Gentiles 
hear  that  I  was  delivered  out  of  the  mouth 
of  the  lion.  And  the  Lord  shall  deliver 
me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  preserve 
me  for  his  heavenly  kingdom." 

Paul  was  not  long  in  Rome,  it  appears. 
He  traveled  through  Italy  to  Illyricum 
(Romans  xv.  19)  which  he  could  have 
visited  only  after  he  had  been  dismissed  in 
Rome,  went  back  to  Syria,  most  likely  to 
Antioch,  which  appears  to  have  been  his 
home,  with  the  intention  to  go  to  Spain. 
But  on  returning  he  found  his  converts 


518  ORIGIN  OF 

falling  oft'  from  him  by  the  influence  of  his 
colleagues  in  Jerusalem  who  taught  them 
the  law  and  circumcision,  and  by  other  in- 
fluences, and  he  was  obliged  to  stay  at 
home  and  secure  his  bishoprick.  This  is 
about  the  lime  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
which  left  the  Jews  in  a  helpless  condition 
of  despair,  the  law  and  its  institutions  de- 
feated, the  nationality  violently  broken  up, 
all  hopes  and  theories  of  salvation  van- 
ished. This  is  the  time  when  Christianity 
could  hope  to  meet  with  success,  and  it  ac- 
tually did.  This  is  the  time  when  Paul 
wrote  most  of  his  epistles  against  the  law, 
the  circumcision,  the  nationality  and  the 
covenant  of  Israel.  In  that  time,  it  may 
be  said,  he  had  good  cause  of  defending 
and  promulgating  doctrines  as  Paul  held 
them. 

It  is  childish  to  suppose  that  his  epistle 
to  the  Romans  was  written  before  he  was 
in  Rome,  nevertheless  he  knew  all  the 
people  whom  he  greets  and  salutes  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter  ;  when  he  begins  with 
greeting  Priscilla  and  Aquilla,  who  were 
with  him  in  Ephesus  till  he  went  up  to 
Jerusalem,  and  undoubtedly  went  with 
him  to  Rome,  so  that  he  could  justly  say, 
"Who  have  for  my  life  laid  down  their 
own  necks :  unto  whom  not  only  I  give 
thanks,  but  also  all  the  churches  of  the 
Gentiles." 

A  thorough  examination  of  the  epistles 
will  give  abundant  proof  that  those  pas- 
sages which  are  considered  spurious,  be- 


CHRISTIANITY.  519 

cause  they  are  imitations  of  passages  in 
Josephus,  or  because  they  must  necessarily 
have  been  written  after  the  fall  of  Jerusa- 
lem, are  much  more  one  of  the  proofs  that 
most  of  the  epistles  were  written  after  that 
eventful  time,  when  Judaism  by  that  ter- 
rible shock  had  been  thrown  off  entirely 
from  its  ancient  basis.  Only  two  Jewish 
sects  survived  the  catastrophe,  the  Phari- 
sees and  the  Christians,  the  rest  were  sub- 
merged in  either  of  them  or  in  Roman 
paganism.  Now  the  struggle  began  for  the 
religious  ascendency.  The  Pharisees  started 
owt  from  the  principle  of  the  expected 
restoration  of  the  Jewish  people  in  a  short 
time,  and  exerted  all  their  energies  to  save 
every  national  law,  custom,  observance  and 
trait  of  character.  With  the  most  rigid 
firmness  they  enforced  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Sanhedrin,  now  an  ecclesias- 
tical court,  as  the  law  of  God,  to  which  all 
teachers,  judges  and  leaders  were  obliged 
to  submit,  in  order  to  prevent  dissentions 
and  sectarianism  which  was  one  of  the 
great  causes  of  their  misfortune.  They 
went  so  far  that  they  excommunicated  the 
rreat  Rabbi  Elieser  ben  Hyrcanos,  because 
he  submitted  not  to  the  majority.  They 
succeeded  so  well  in  preserving  and 
strengthening  the  patriotic  hopes  of  the 
Jews,  that  one  of  the  most  terrible  rebel- 
lions which  Rome  had  been  called  to  crush, 
was  made  by  those  vanquished  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Hadrian.  It  failed.  The  rabbis 
who  had  created  that  new  svstem  of  rab- 


520  ORIGIN  OF 

binisni  fell  as  martyrs.  Their  words  became 
the  unalterable  law  to  future  generations, 
and  their  system  the  foundation  of  the 
rabbinism  of  all  generations,  always  upon 
the  same  basis,  •'  the  restoration  of  Israel 
may  come  to  pass  every  day,  and  then  all 
the  laws  of  Moses  will  be  in  force  as  they 
were  heretofore." 

The  Christians  started  out  from  the  prin- 
ciple, the  nationality  of  Israel  is  at  an  end, 
the  national  laws,  customs,  <fec.,  are  abro- 
gated, and  the  world  of  Gentiles  is  with 
Israel  heir  of  the  religious  and  moral 
truths  which  were  hitherto  encased  in  Is- 
rael's nationality.  The  approaching  end 
which  Paul  preached  was  the  lever  to  rouse 
the  Gentiles  to  repentance.  The  Son  of 
God  whom  he  proclaimed  was  his  instru- 
ment to  prove  the  truth  of  resurrection  for 
the  time  being,  to  console  the  alarmed 
heathens  after  they  had  become  conscious 
of  the  approaching  end  and  their  own 
wickedness,  to  lead  them  to  the  Father 
whom  they  did  not  comprehend,  by  the  son 
\vhich  was  a  familiar  conception  to  them, 
and  to  bestow  upon  them  the  religious  and 
moral  treasures  of  Israel.  The  words  and 
the  symbols  are  different,  but  the  sense  is 
always  the  same.  The  Jesus  of  Paul  is  no 
more  than  the  superintendent  of  the  catas- 
trophe which  was  then  to  come  to  pass,  and 
after  which  he  should  be  subject  to  the 
Father  and  God,  should  be  again  all  in  all. 

Both  of  them  succeeded.  As  the  Phari- 
sean  rabbis  succeeded  in  the  preservation 


_... 


CHRISTIANITY.  521 

of  Israel  and  his  treasures,  so  Paul  and  his 
co-laborers  succeeded  in  the  demolition  of 
paganism  and  the  promulgation  of  relig- 
ious and  moral  truth.  The  errors  came 
after  them.  As  the  Jews  tenaciously 
clinging  to  the  idea  of  restoration,  adhered 
faithfully  to  the  rabbinism  based  upon  it, 
and  spun  it  out  into  six  hundred  and  thir- 
teen principal  laws  with  several  thousand 
auxiliary  ones  ;  although  the  idea  of  restor- 
ation was  itself  auxiliary  only  :  so  did  the 
Christians  in  after  times  cling  to  the  auxil- 
iary ideas  of  Paul  and  spun  out  cddes  of 
dogmas,  on  the  trinity,  the  incarnation,  the 
immaculate  conception,  the  inspiration  of 
Scriptures,  the  theory  of  salvation,  angels, 
demons,  sataii,  heaven,  hell,  purgatory, 
and  all  the  other  productions  of  scholasti- 
cism, :Both  clung  more  to  the  means  than 
to  the  substance.  The  Talmuds  of  Jerusa- 
lem, Babylonia,  Mecca,  Rome,  St.  Peters- 
burg, Berlin  and  London,  with  all  the 
commentaries  and  sub-commentaries  are 
substantially  the  same,  many  words  about 
the  means  and  few  on  the  substance. 

Both  were  necessary,  or  else  they  could 
not  succeed.  Rabbinism  preserved  the 
Jew,  encrusting  him  with  the  impenetrable 
shell  of  thousand  laws  and  observances. 
The  Jew  preserved  the  main  principles  of 
religion  and  ethics  in  their  primitive  purity, 
and  rescued  the  Bible  together  with  his 
rational  views  on  the  same,  from  the  de- 
structive revolutions  of  eighteen  centuries. 
Dogmatic  Christianitv  prevented  the  re- 
34 


522  ORIGIN  OF 

introduction  of  paganism  after  the  migra- 
tion of  nations,  because  it  gave  to  those 
semi-barbarians  a  sensual  religion  which 
they  could  understand  in  part  at  least, 
being  heathenism  on  the  outside  and  Ju- 
daism inside.  It  preserved  the  moral  truth 
in  the  indigestible  crust  of  medieval  chris- 
tology,  in  the  midst  of  all  the  ignorance, 
violence  and  rudeness  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  protected  the  nucleus  for  better  days. 
It  gave  a  religion  to  those  who  were  inca- 
pable of  grasping  the  abstract  ideas  of  God, 
immortality,  morals,  justice,  freedom,  and 
humanity. 

Both  must  fall.  Rabbinical  Judaism 
and  dogmatic  Christianity,  being  extensive 
codes  concerning  the  means  of  religion, 
must  finally  yield  to  the  progress  and  tri- 
umph of  the  religious  idea  itself;  then  .God 
will  be  again  all  in  all,  to  speak  with  Paul, 
or  then  God  will  be  one  and  his  name  one 
as  the  prophet  has  it.  Whenever  they 
shall  have  done  each  its  full  service  to  the 
cause  of  religion,  they  will  disappear..  In- 
telligent men  in  our  days  need  neither  rab- 
binism  nor  christology;  the  pure  doctrines 
of  God,  immortality  and  morals,  as  the 
wise  Creator  has  impressed  them  oh  the 
human  conscience  and  consciousness,  are 
sufficient  for  the  happiness  of  every  indi- 
vidual, the  peace  and  the  prosperity  of  so- 
ciety. Thoughtless  masses  need  the  anti- 
quated means,  the  child  must  be  coaxed  to 
school ;  but  it  is  the  duty  of  every  good 
man  to  diminish  the  number  of  thought- 


CHRISTIANITY.  523 

less  individuals  by  spreading  light,  in- 
formation, genuine  piety,  eternal  truth,  to 
wean  and  to  educate  the  child.  Let  this 
be  done;  let  the  means  fall,  and  the 
breaches  be  repaired. 

But  we  return  to  the  historical  point. 
The  representative  men  of  the  Pharisees 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  the  very  foun- 
ders of  rabbinism,  were  the  rabbis  Johanau 
ben  Sacoai,  Gamliel  II,  Tarphon,  Hanina 
ben  Dosa,  several  Joshua,  Ishmael,  Eliezer 
and  Eliazar — The  *.nain  and  most  active 
representative,  however,  was  Rabbi  Akiba, 
whose  most  distinguished  opponent  was 
Acher,  and  Aclier  is  Paul.  Rabbi  Akiba 
represented  the  new  rabbinism  and  Paul 
the  new  Christianity.  Both  traveled  over 
the  same  countries  precisely,  undoubtedly 
preaching  in  opposition  to  each  other,  each 
advocating  his  own  cause.  Both  of  them 
claimed  to  have  been  in  Paradise,  "  caught 
np  to  the  third  heaven,"  and  to  know  all 
about  the  mysteries.  Paul  opposed  the 
whole  law,  and  Akiba  could  prove  a  new 
law  from  every  dot  in  the  Bible,  and  ex- 
pounded "heaps  upon  heaps  of  them,"  as  the 
rabbinical  hyperbole  states.  They  undoubt- 
edly stimulated  each  other.  The  more  sa- 
gacity one  exhibited  iu  expounding  laws, 
the  more  the  other  strained  his  energies  to 
prove  the  abrogation  of  all  of  them.  So 
they  pushed  each  other  to  extremes.  Paul 
taught,  as  one  of  the  means  of  salvation, 
baptism  .  in  the  name  of  Jesus ;  and 
Akiba  said:  "Blessed  are  you,  O  Israel! 
34* 


524  ORIGIN  OF 

for  before  whom  do  you  purify  yourselves? 
and  who  purifies  you?  Your  Father  in 
heaven,  as  the  prophet  said,  'And  I  will 
sprinkle  upon  you  purifying  water,' Ac.,  as 
the  bath  purifies  the  impure,  so  God  puri- 
fies Israel."  This  is  in  direct  opposition  to 
Paul's  baptism  and  his  theory  of  salvation. 
God  does  that  to  Israel,  what  Paul  says, 
the  blood  of  the  son  does  to  the  Gentiles. 
Without  multiplying  instances,  as  we  can 
not  fully  carry  out  the  subject,  we  believe 
to  be  entitled  to  the  observation  that  Paul 
and  Akiba,if  thoroughly  examined  in  their 
method  and  substance  of  instruction,  ex- 
plain each  other.  They  are  counterparts  of 
the  same  age,  the  same  rield  of  labor,  with 
the  same  object  in  view.  Akiba  whose 
main  basis  was  patriotism  natiirally,  came 
in  conflict  with  Rome,  prepared  the  tre- 
mendous rebellion  under  Bar  Cochba,  and 
died  by  the  hand  of  the  executioner,  if  the 
rabbinical  accounts  of  his  end  are  true. 
They  are  very  much  embellished  however. 
Paul  who  yielded  to  Roman  authority  and 
opposed  the  Jewish  patriotism,  it  appears, 
lived  to  a  good  old  age  and  died  a  natural 
death.  According  to  the  rabbinical  records 
Akiba  spoke  never  disrespectfuUy  of  Acher 
or  Paul,  and  he  spoke  respectfully  of  Akiba, 
so  that  no  enmity  is  perceptible. 

The  rabbinical  as  well  as  the  Christian 
chronology  and  history  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries  are  so  uncertain  and  un- 
reliable, they  were  so  much  inclined  to 
make  history  of  parables,  legends  and  vi- 


CHRISTIANITY.  525 

sions,  and  spoke  of  events  so  entirely  with- 
out regard  to  chronology  that  it  is  next  to 
an  impossibility,  to  distinguish  truth  from 
fiction.  Xohody  can  snv  with  any  degree 
of  certainty,  when  and  where  either  Paul  or 
Akiha  was  horn,  or  when  and  where  either 
of  them  died.  No  cotemporary  historian 
or  chronosjrapher  wrote  about  them.  There- 
fore nobody  can  say  whether  the  following 
narratives  are  actually  true.  Still  they 
serve  one  pnn><»so,  viz:  to  show  what  the 
rabbis  of  the  Talmud  t  bought  of  Paul,  and 
in  what  relation  they  considered  him  to 
his  cotemporary  doctors. 

It  has  been  mentioned  before  that  the 
rabbis  make  Rabbi  Mair.  who  was  the  great 
light  amon?  the  Jewish  doctors  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  and  both  in  learning  and 
liberal  doctrines  one  of  the  most,  remark- 
able men,  to  the  pupil  of  both  Akiba  and 
Paul  or  Acher.  This  may  Vie  allegorical 
altogether,  to  represent  the  mutual  in- 
fluence on  the  mind  of  the  next  generation. 
This  very  "Rabbi  Mair,  of  whom  they  said 
that  there  was  none  like  him  in  his  genera- 
tion, that  his  sagacity  was  unlimited,  and 
that  he  was  so  expert  in  expounding  the 
law  that  he  could  prove  in  forty-nine  dif- 
ferent ways,  why  a  reptile  was  unclean, 
then  again  in  forty-nine  other  way*!,  why 
the  same  reptile  was  clean — this  Rabbi 
Mair  was  not  acknowledged  as  an  authority 
in  legal  decisions,  although  he  was  supe- 
rior to  all  his  c  «lleagues,  and  was  obliged 
to  retire  into  private  life  (he  died  in  Asia 


526  OKIGIN  OF 

Miuor,)  although  he  had  done  most  for  the 
restoration  .of  the  law  and  the  study  there- 
of after  the  death  of  Hadrian.  The  cause 
of  this  apathy  to  Rabbi  Mair,  on  the  part 
of  the  doctors,  is,  according  to  the  Talmud, 
his  disputes  with  the  prince  Simon  ben 
Gamliel,  the  legitimate  siu-eessor  to  that 
dignity  from  the  Hillel  family,  who  stood 
far  below  Mair  on  the  intullectual  scale. 
But  the  very  cause  of  these  disputes  was, 
or  at  least  it  has  been  ascribed  to  the  fact 
that  this  Mair  was  a  pupil  also  of  Acher  or 
Paul.  One  of  the  rabbis  of  a  later  day  met 
the.  prophet  Elijah,  whom  he  asked  what 
God  was  doing,  to  which  that  angelized 
prophet  is  supposed  to  have  replied  :  "  He 
repeats  the  verbal  laws  after  all  the  rabbis 
except  after  Rabbi  Mair,  because  he  has 
learned  them  of  Acher  "  (or  Paul.)  (Hagi- 
gah  15  b.)  Other  rabbis,  however,  take  the 
part  of  Mair  very  liberally,  and  prove  from 
several  passages  of  Scripture  that  he  was 
perfectly  right  to  receive  instruction  of 
Acher.  "He  retained  the  kernel  and  re- 
fused the  shell." 

It  is  highly  interesting  to  study  the  mu- 
tual influence  of  Akiba  upon  the  primitive 
Christians  who,  down  to  the  third  century, 
clung  to  many  of  his  laws  and  doctrines, 
and  especially  to  his  peculiar  exegese,  and 
of  Paul  upon  the  development  of  rabbinism 
which  the  Talmud  allegori/"S  in  the  person 
of  Rabbi  Mair,  the  pupil  <>i  those  two  rep- 
resentatives of  two  diverging  systems,  al- 
though it  may  be  true  that  Mair  was  the 


CHRISTIANITY.  527 

papil  of  both.  Still  it  is  not  our  sphere  to 
follow  up  this  instructive  theme.  We  can 
only  call  attention  to  it  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  will  hereafter  give  tueir  atten- 
tion to  the  subject,  and  compare  the  Chris- 
tian and  rabbinical  literatures  of  those 
centuries. 

The  intercourse  of  Mairand  Paul  in  after 
days  is  illustrated  in  the  following  anec- 
dotes :* 

Paul  asked  Mair:  "How  doest  thou  under- 
stand the  verse  'Also  this  opposite  that  hath 
God  made?'  "  (Eccles.  vii,  14.)  Mair  replied: 
"  To  every  thing  which  God  made,  he  made 
a  counterpart.  He  created  mountains  an.i 
valleys,  seas  and  rivers,"  &c.  Paul  objected 
thus:  "Thy  teacher  Akiba  did  not  ex  plain  it 
so;  he  said,  God  created  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked,  also  paradise  and  hell.  Each 
has  two  portions,  one  in  paradise  and  an- 
other in  hell.  If  he  be  righteous,  he  takes 
two  portions  in  paradise,  his  own  and  that 
of  his  wicked  neighbor;  if  he  be  wicked, 
he  takes  two  portions  in  hell,  his  own  and 
that  of  his  righteous  neighbor."  This  is  a 
fair  exposition  of  Akiba's  doctrine  con- 
cerning reward  and  punishment  in  strict 
accordance  with  man's  doings,  to  which 
Paul  object-*  and  teaches  justification  by 
faith. 

Another  time  Paul  asks  Mair :  "  How  dost 
thou  understand  the  verse,  'And  the  Lord 
blessed  the  latter  da vs  of  Job  ?'  "  Mair  re- 


*Vide  Yernxhalmi,  Hagigah  ii,  1 ;  Babli  do.  13  a  and 
the  MitlratJiim  as  quoted  above. 


528  OKIGIN  OF 

plied  :  "  I  understand  it  by  the  sequel,  'And 
the  Lord  gave  him  double  of  all  ;'  he  re- 
stored doubly  his  lost  property  to  him." 
Paul  objected:  "Thy  teacher  Akiba  says 
otherwise,  he  saj^s,  on  account  of  the  virtue 
and  righteousness  which  was  in  Job  at  the 
beginning,  God  blessed  his  latter  days." 
This  story  has  the  same  tendency  as  above, 
only  that  it  refers  to  this  life,  while  the 
above  refers  to  the  life  hereafter.  Akiba 
holds  God  blessed  Job  at  the  end,  because 
his  righteousness  cl<  served  it,  while  Paul 
thought  Job's  faith  deserved  this  blessing. 
Again  he  asked  Mair:  "How  nnderstand- 
est  them  the  words  '  the  end  of  the  thing  is 
better  than  its  beginning  ?'  "  Mair  replied  : 
"  It  may  be  better.  If  one  had  children  in 
his  younger  days,  they  died  however,  and 
he  gets  children  in  his  older  days.  If  one 
acquired  knowledge  in  his  youth,  forgot  it, 
and  studied  again  in  his  advanced  age.  So 
the  end  may  be  better  than  the  beginning." 
Paul  objected  and  translated  that  verse: 
"  '  The  good  of  the  end  of  a  thing  (or  per- 
son) depends  on  its  beginning,'  if  the  in- 
tentions were  good  at  the  beginning,  if  the 
motives  were  laudable,  the  end  were  good." 
Here  he  narrates  the  circumcision  story  to 
which  we  referred  above.  In  this  case 
Akiba  is  not  mentioned,  and  the  doctrine 
involved  is  evidently  the  anti-gnostic  Chris- 
tian one,  opposed  to  the  rabbinical  decision 
about  rctr^  N^C'  which  Akiba  refused. 

Furthermore  he  asked  Mair:  "Howunder- 
standest  thou  the  passage  (Job  xxviii,   17,) 


CHRISTIANITY.  529 

'  She  can  not  be  estimated  after  gold  or 
glass;  and  not  in  exchange  for  her,  can 
vessels  of  fine  gold  be  taken  ?'  "  Mair  re- 
plied: "This  refers  to  the  words  of  the  law, 
which  are  difficult  tojattain  like  line  gold, 
and  easily  lost  like  glass."  Paul  ob- 
jected :  "  Thy  teacher  Akiba  said  thus,  if 
the  learned  forget  their  knowledge,  they 
may  easily  regain  it  (as  the  gold  is  easily 
cleaned, )  even  if  they  go  astray  they  may 
easily  be  recalled  to  the  path  of  virtue." 

Here  the  Babli  puts  in  the  interesting 
notice  that  this  was  on  a  Sabbath,  Paul 
was  riding  horse-back,  Mair  followed  him 
on  foot,  and  Paul  suddenly  stopped  him 
with  the  words,  "  Return  Mair,  to  this 
point  is  a  Sabbath  way,"  as  far  as  it  was 
allowed  to  walk  on  Sabbath.  "  How  doest 
th ou  know  it?"  Mair  asked.  "I  counted 
the  steps  of  the  horses,"  said  Paul.  This 
was  to  show  either  Mair's  strict  adherence 
to  the  rabbinical  rule,  or  Paul's  respect  for 
Mair's  conscience,  or  both.  Mair  ex- 
claimed, "As  thou  art  so  wise,  return  also 
thou  "  (to  Judaism.)  Paul  replied,  "  I  can 
not,  for  as  I  have  told  thee  before,  I  once 
passed  the  sanctuary  of  Jerusalem  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement  which  was  on  a  Sab- 
bath, riding  horse-back,  and  I  heard  a  Bath 
kol  issuing  from  the  sanction  sanctorum, 
"  Return  all  ye  f reward  children,  except 
Acher  who  knew  my  power  and  yet  re- 
belled against  me." 

Here  the  two  Talmuds  differ  in  the  nar- 
rative to  the  very  extreme.  The  Babli  has 


530  ORIGIN  OF 

Paul  end  in  remorse  and  suicide,  and  the 
Yerushalmi  has  the  direct  contrary.  After 
he  had  asked  several  pupils  on  several 
occasions,  after  the  biblical  verses  they 
had  just  learned,  and  such  answers  were 
something  akin  to  the  reply  of  the  Bath  kol, 
and  all  of  them  answered,  as  he  under- 
stood it,  in  condemnation  of  himself;  he 
committed  suicide.  The  Yerushalmi,  how- 
ever, has  the  story  thus  :  Acher  being  very 
sick,  Mair  came  to  see  him  and  found  him 
very  low.  He  again  admonished  him  to 
return.  Paul  asked,  will  I  be  accepted  in 
God's  grace,  if  I  return?  to  which  Mair 
replied,  that  man  may  return  to  his  Maker 
to  the  very  last  moment  of  his  life,  and  ex- 
pect the  grace  of  the  Most  High.  "  In  that 
hour  he  (Paul)  wept  and  died.  Mair  re- 
joiced and  said,  it  appears  to  me  that  he 
died  a  repenting  sinner.  A  lire  came  from 
heaven  and  his  grave  burnt.  Mair  went 
out,  spread  his  cloak  over  the  grave  and 
said:  'Tarry  here  all  night,  tarry  in  this 
world  which  is  like  unto  night ;  and  it  shall 
be  in  the  morning,  this  is  the  life  to  come 
which  is  all  morning;  if  he  will  redeem 
thee,  the  Good  shall  redeem  thee,  this  is  God 
of  wrhom  it  is  said  God  is  good  to  all  and 
His  mercy  extends  over  all  His  works;  and 
if  He  shall  not  redeem  thee,  I  shall 
redeem  thee,  as  sure  as  God  lives.'  "  This, 
it  is  easily  understood,  could  have  been 
addressed  to  Paul  only,  and  refers  clearly 
to  his  theory  of  redemption,  which  the  Tal- 
mud opposes. 


CHRISTIANITY.  531 

This  remarkable  story  is  told  somewhat 
different  in  the  Babli ;  both,  however,  agree 
that  Mair  redeemed  Paul  and  led  him  to 
heaven.  So  they  were  really  liberal 
enough  not  to  condemn  him,  as  modern 
sectaries  would  do  under  similar  circum- 
stances. •'  He  was  saved,"  they  main- 
tained, "  on  account  of  his  learning." 

This  and  similar  stories  in  the  Talmud 
show  that  they  knew  Paul's  grave.  They 
also  speak  of  his  daughters,  hence  he  must 
have  married  after  his  return  from  Rome. 
It  appears  that  he  led  a  retired  lite  in  his 
advanced  age,  when  all  but  Luke  had  de- 
serted him,  and  Timothy  was  far  from  him. 
The  whole  tone  of  that  epistle  talleys  with 
these  talmudical  tales,  not  that  he  repented 
his  course,  but  that  he  was  greatly  disap- 
pointed by  the  desertions  from  his  ranks, 
and  the  opposition  from  the  apostles. 

Furthermore  these  stories  show  the  high 
respect  which  the  rabbis  paid  to  Paul's 
learning,  and  how  they  tried  to  suppose  he 
returned  to  Judaism  in  the  last  moments 
of  his  life,  although  Mair  would  not  say  so 
for  sure.  These  stories  show  an  entirely 
different  spirit  between  Paul  and  the  Jews, 
from  what  the  author  of  "The  Acts" 
states,  who  was  an  enemy  of  the  Jews. 
This  fully  agrees  with  Paul's  epistles  who 
never  speak  ill  or  harsh  of  the  Jews,  of 
whom  he  says  salvation  comes :  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  always  with  pride  and  hope 
that  he  speaks  of  then).  "  My  brethren, 
my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,"  he 


532  ORIGIN  OF 

says,  "  who  are  Israelites,  to  whom  per- 
taineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law," 
Ac.  (Romans  ix, 4.)  "  I  say  then, "he says 
on  another  occasion,  "  have  they  stumbled 
that  they  should  fall?  God  forbid:  but 
rather  through  their  fall  salvation  was  to 
come  unto  the  Gentiles,  for  to  provoke  them 
to  jealtmsy.  Now,  if  the  fall  of  them  be 
the  riches  of  the  world,  and  the  diminish- 
ing of  them  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles  ;  how 
much  more  their  fullness."  *  *  *  "  For, 
if  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also 
holy :  and  if  the  root  be  holy  so  arc  the 
branches.  And  if  some  of  the  branches 
be  broken  off,  and  thou  being  a  wild  olive- 
tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  partakest 
of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree  ; 
boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if 
thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but 
the  root  thee."  (Ibid,  xi,  11.)  That  spirit 
of.  enmity  and  misrepresentation  which 
made  the  Gospels  and  "  The  Acts  "  so  ob- 
noxious to  the  Jews,  is  not  of  Paul  nor  of 
any  other  of  the  apostles  ;  it  was  engen- 
dered in  foreign  lands  by  Gentile  Chris- 
tians in  the  second  century,  and  engrafted 
on  the  Gospel  stories.  Therefore  the  Tal- 
mud shows  no  particular  enmity  to  Chris- 
tians, although  in»the  second  century  the 
enactment  of  laws  had  become  necessary 
to  protect  Judaism  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  growing  Christianity.  But  these 
laws  concerned  the  Jews  and  not  the 
Christians.  Intermarriage  among  Jews 


CHRISTIANITY.  533 

and  Christians  was  not  prohibited  by  Jews ; 
it  was  done  by  Cnristian  authorities,  eccle- 
siastical and  worldly. 


We  are  done,  and  must  leave  it  to  others 
to  continue  this  task,  to  compare  the  New 
Testament  with  the  coternporary  portions 
of  the  Talmud.  It  is  a  laborious  but  re- 
munerative task.  The  results  of  our  re- 
search may  guide  others  far  beyond  our 
landmark,  and  we  hope  truth,  the  holiest 
cause,  will  be  benefited  by  this  new  road 
of  research  wbich  we  suppose  to  have 
opened. 

Christianity  originated  in  its  age,  and 
bears  the  impress  of  the  same.  The  angels 
and  the  demons,  the  messianic  specula- 
tions, the  belief  in  miracles,  wondrous 
cures,  supernatural  diseases,  necromancy 
and  sorcery,  the  frequent  appearance  of 
angels  and  the  speaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
or  Bath  kol,  are  all  the  products  of  that 
morbid  and  overloaded  age.  Its  solid  basis 
is  an  abstract  from  Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
strongly  intermixed  with  rabbinical  views. 
The  Christianity  of  Peter  and  the  other 
disciples  of  Jesus  exists  no  more;  Paul, 
especially  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  op- 
posed and  defeated  it.  '  Modern  Christianity 
has  more  of  Paul  than  of  Peter  and  Jesus, 
although  in  the  dogmas  Paul  also  is 
scarcely  traceable.  It  is  probably  the 
strangest  phenomenon  in  history.  Peter 
proclaims  Jesus  the  Messiah,  it  costs  his 
life.  After  his  death  Peter  proclaims  his 


534  ORIGIN  OF 

second  advent  and  the  hope  connected 
therewith,  viz:  the  restoration  of  the  Da- 
vidian  throne,  and  finds  some  though  few 
believers.  Then  conies  Paul,  uses  this  idea, 
and  that  of  the  end  of  the  world  approach- 
ing, as  the  means  of  converting  the  heath- 
ens to  pure  Judaism.  The  second  advent 
never  came  to  pass,  the  world  did  not  come 
to  an  end,  there  was  no  last  day  of  judg- 
ment, hence  no  savior  was  as  yet  necessary, 
and  Christendom  still  adheres  to  the  belief 
of  those  who  were  addressed  by  Paul,  add- 
ing thereto  numerous  dogmas  of  which  he 
knew  nothing,  although  Paul's  christology 
was  intended  lor  the  time  being  only,  and 
not  for  the  future.  If  Paul  and  Peter 
would  come  into  one  of  our  modern 
churches  and  re-assert  their  doctrines,  they 
would  surely  be  excommunicated.  The 
Christianity  of  to-day  has  no  similarity  to 
that  of  Peter  and  very  little  in  common 
with  that  of  Paul.  They  knew  nothing  of 
the  trinity,  universal  depravity,  or  redemp- 
tion by  grace  in  the  form  of  the  church ; 
nothing  of  the  pope  and  his  hierarchy,  of 
the  saints,  the  mother  or  grandmother  of 
God ;  nothing  of  purgatory  or  hell,  of  the 
condemnation  of  all  who  believe  not  in 
Christ,  of  the  power  of  the  church  to  for- 
give sins,  or  of  the  wonderful  efficacy  of 
the  wine  and  the  bread  at  the  Lord's  sup- 
per; nothing  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  or 
holidays,  mass,  or  prayer  through  Christ 
to  God ;  they  knew  nothing  of  all  Chris- 
tian dogmatics.  If  the  pope  is  a  Christian, 


CHRISTIANITY. 


535 


Paul  was  none;  if  any  of  our  modern  con- 
gregations are  Christian,  the  apostolic  con- 
gregation of  Jerusalem  was  heretic.  Or- 
thodox christology  is  the  product  of  ages 
of  darkness,  and  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  lessons  of  Jesus,  as  propagated 
either  by  Peter  or  by  Paul.  It  is  at  war- 
fare with  philosophy  and  science,  and  sus- 
tained by  constant  appeals  to  credulity 
and  ignorance.  It  stands,  because  thou- 
sands know  no  better. 


. 


.   £?» 

> 


, 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


SEP  29  1943 




LD  21-100m-7,'39(402s) 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


YB  7165 


